Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (No Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Goldsmid Estate Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Whitby Water Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (No Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Bridlington Harbour Provisional Order Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords] (No Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of
Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, brought from the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Copyright Order Confirmation (Mechanical Instruments: Royalties) Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords] Standing Orders applicabe thereto complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, brought from the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

Ministry of Health (Halifax and West Riding Provisional Orders) Confirmation Bill [Lords].

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Gillingham Extension) Bill [Lords].

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Swindon Extension) Bill [Lords].

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 5) Bill [Lords].

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 7) Bill [Lords].

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 8) Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

Dudley Corporation Bill: As amended, considered: to be read the Third time.

COLONIAL STOCK ACT, 1900.

Copy ordered, "of Treasury List of Colonial Stocks in respect of which the provisions of the Act are for the time being complied with."—[Mr. A. M. Samuel.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS ACT.

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of complaints he has received from various sources making allegations concerning the infringement of Part I of the Cinematograph Films Act; can he say whether these various complaints have been investigated; and what action his Department has taken?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The hon. Member may rest assured that I am watching the position carefully, and shall take such action as may be possible and useful.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these complaints have been placed before the Advisory Committee?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Advisory Committee consider the general position, but, when it comes to the question whether there is evidence for prosecution, obviously that must be considered by the Legal Department.

Mr. DAY: Have the Advisory Committee reported to the right hon. Gentleman on the complaints?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, they have not. The Act lays down certain

Period.
Thousands of Barrels.


Commercial Crop.
Total Exports.
Exports to United Kingdom.


Year, 1923
…
35,936




July, 1923, to June, 1924
…

4,098
2,955


Year, 1924
…
28,013




July, 1924, to June, 1925
…

3,201
2,373


Year, 1925
…
33,246




July, 1925, to June, 1926
…

3,672
2,383


Year, 1926
…
39,095*




July, 1926, to June, 1927
…

7,097
Not yet available.


* Preliminary estimate.

provisions, and, if these provisions are infringed and there is sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution, then a prosecution will take place. That is a legal question.

AMERICAN AND CANADIAN APPLES (IMPORTS).

Commander BELLAIRS: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what were the exports of American and Canadian apples, respectively, in 1926 to this country?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The exports of apples to the United Kingdom from Canada in 1926 were 1,111,000 barrels, and from the United States of America, 3,529,000 barrels, according to the official returns of those countries.

Commander BELLAIRS: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state, for a surplus of 5 per cent. or other percentage in the production of apples in the United States, what is the equivalent surplus created for export, in view of the fact that the uncertainty thus created militates against the build ing up of the Empire fruit trade?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer includes a table of figures, and if my hon. and gallant Friend agrees, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table:

The Department of Agriculture of the United States publishes the following figures of the apples grown in and exported from that country. The crop figures relate to apples sold for consumption as fresh fruit:

In view of the considerable variation in the quantity disposed of in the United States in different years, in comparison with the quantities exported, I am unable to formulate such a relation of production to export as my hon. and gallant Friend appears to have in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD (PUBLICITY COMMITTEE).

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominions Affairs who is responsible for advising the Empire Marketing Board in the selection of posters for display by the Board?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): The Empire Marketing Board is advised in all such matters by a Publicity Committee. I will circulate the names of the members of the committee in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the list of members:

THE PUBLICITY COMMITTEE.

The Rt. Hon. W. G. A. Ormsby-Gore, M.P. (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies). (Chairman.)

Sir William Crawford, K.B.E. (Member of the Empire Marketing Board, Governing Director of Messrs. W. S. Crawford, Limited). Vice-Chairman.)

Sir Thomas Allen (Member of the Empire Marketing Board and the Imperial Economic Committee).

Sir Woodman Burbidge, Baronet, C.B.E. (Chairman and Managing Director of Messrs. Harrods, Limited).

The Viscount Burnham, G.C.M.G., C.H. (President of the Empire Press Union).

Sir William Clark, K.C.S.I., C.M.G. (Comptroller-General of the Department of Overseas Trade).

Mrs. Cottrell (Director of the Cooperative Wholesale Society, Limited).

Lieut.-General Sir William Furse, K.C.B., D.S.O. (Director of the Imperial Institute.)

Mr. D. G. Gerahty (Director of Publicity for Canada in the United Kingdom.)

Mr. T. Johnston, M.P.

Mr. H. A. Lindsay, C.I.E., C.B.E. (Member of the Empire Marketing Board and the Imperial Economic Committee).

Mr. F. L. McDougall, C.M.G. (Member of the Empire Marketing Board and the Imperial Economic Committee).

Sir William Perring, J.P., M.P. (Representing National Chamber of Trade).

Mr. F. Pick (Managing Director, Underground Railways, and London General Omnibus Company, Limited).

Lieut.-Colonel N. G. Scorgie, C.B.E. (Deputy-Controller of His Majesty's Stationery Office).

Mr. J. C. Stobart (Director of Education of the British Broadcasting Corporation).

Mr. G. Huxley, M.C. (Secretary).

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

ST. MARY STEAMSHIP COMPANY.

Mr. MARDY JONES: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the Report of the inspector appointed by his Department to investigate the affairs of the St. Mary Steamship Company; and whether it is his intention to take any action in the matter?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Copies of the Report have been communicated to the parties in accordance with the provisions of Subsection (6) of Section 109 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1906. The Report has been submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

HELM ORDERS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is able to make any statement as to the Government's attitude to the proposal to change the form and terms of the helm orders on board ship by international agreement; and what steps have been taken, or will be taken, to ascertain the views of British mariners generally as to the desirability and form of the changes proposed?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Helm orders on British ships are governed by custom, not by law or regulation, and the Board of Trade would not intervene
unless the custom were causing danger or unless there were a general desire to consider the advisability of a change and the Board were invited to assist in the process. In that event, the Board would give all the help in their power, but they would make three suggestions, first, that any proposed alteration should be fully considered by masters, navigating officers and pilots before a decision is reached; second, that if the British system is changed, it should be to some system which will be international; third, that special care be taken to prevent danger during the change over.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any evidence to show that either confusion or danger is caused by the present long-established and well-understood British helm orders?

Sir P. CUNLFFE-LISTER: No, Sir, absolutely none, and that is why I should hesitate so much to give any support to any change which might be suggested.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will this House be consulted before any change is made and before we ratify any change?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have no intention, as I said in the answer, of advising any change. I should not like to answer off-hand whether, if a convention should ultimately be negotiated, it would necessarily be subject to the prior aproval of Parliament or not. It seems to me quite academic.

Mr. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake, before any steps are taken, and in the view of the possibility of any change, to get to know the opinion of King Neptune as to the desecration of the last remnants of the romance of the sea?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I hope that neither the questions nor the answers will suggest that any change is being contemplated, but, before I contemplate any change in any matter of that kind, I should take the very best expert advice that I possibly could.

Commander BELLAIRS: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Board, in conjunction with the Board of Admiralty, have had any preliminary investigation,
especially in regard to American experience in this matter?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes. I should not like without notice to say exactly what consideration has been given to it, but certainly we have no representation which leads us to suppose that any change is contemplated.

Lord APSLEY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in America there are two systems now in vogue—the Admiralty have one system, and the Mercantile Marine have another—and can such a change possibly be made in the customs of this country without Parliamentary sanction.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not sure about that matter. I think that very likely Parliamentary sanction would be advisable, but I do want, again, to assert that the fact that these questions appear on the Order Paper should not be taken by anybody to suggest that a change is contemplated or is desirable.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is any reason why we should copy America in Naval matters?

STATE-OWNED VESSELS (IMMUNITY).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department is negotiating with other Powers with a view to reaching an agreement that the plea of diplomatic immunity be no longer relied on in the case of defendant shipping companies subsidised by their Governments?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The negotiations which are at present proceeding on the question of the immunity of shipping from process of law are those connected with the draft International Convention of 1926 for the unification of certain rules relating to the immunity of State-owned vessels. This draft Convention applies to ships owned or operated by States and does not apply to ships which are merely subsidised.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether his attention has been called to the fact that the United States Shipping Line are taking this plea and will he say whether they have any contracts for carrying mails or
any other arrangements with the Government?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As to what contracts there are for carrying mails, I should not like to answer that question without notice. I think it should be addressed to the Postmaster-General. Obviously, I cannot comment on a case that is sub judice, but I am not at all sure that the hon. Member is right in saying that the defence of immunity is in fact being taken in this case.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman watching this matter closely from the point of view of British merchants and commercial houses?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, certainly. That is why I was so anxious to get a convention which would abolish immunity of State shipping—a universal convention which would abolish that immunity in all cases where the State is the owner of ships. I think the Convention does not deal with mere questions of subsidy, but it is generally assumed by the International lawyers who are engaged upon it that they would not be covered.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman call for papers in the case of Russell v. The United States Shipping Line and see what observations the Master made about the propriety?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The powers entrusted to me are fairly extensive, but I am not sure that they extend to the right to call for papers in such a case as this.

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the attention of the American Government has been drawn to the position taken up by the United States Shipping Company, because, from what I know of America, it is perfectly certain that the common-sense there would prevent them from taking up so absurd a line as that taken up by the shipping line.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think it would be well to await delivery of the pleadings in this case before we criticise the action of the company.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

CLEARING OFFICE FOR ENEMY DEBTS.

Mr. HARRIS: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how long it is expected to have to continue the Enemy Debts Department; and what staff is at present employed therein?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Enemy Debts Department, which includes also the Departments for the administration of German, Austrian, Hungarian and Bulgarian Property, is rapidly completing its work of dealing with claims and with ex-enemy property under the Economic Clauses of the Treaties of Peace, but it is not possible to indicate precisely the date when it will be closed down. The work of the office is kept under constant review, and the staff is being continually reduced. The number employed on 1st June last was 598, as compared with 914 two years ago.

Mr. HARRIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that 10 years after the War a separate Department on this scale, with a staff of over five hundred people, wants considerable explanation?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Unfortunately, it does not rest with me, because the Treaty of Peace laid down a great many duties which I have to carry out, whether I like them or not. For instance, there are very detailed accounts which have to be rendered to Germany of all property sequestered. This is one of the most complicated matters. I should be ready to deal with it if I could and clear it out of the way.

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: Does that arise out of the policy of making the Germans pay?

Mr. KELLY: In view of the work being completed, will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries why new people were introduced to the Department during this year.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Any detailed question with regard to particular members of the staff must obviously be put on the Order Paper.

Mr. KELLY: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether there are any cases in which the legal adviser to the Enemy Debts Department has advised that applicants for the release of
sequestrated property are stateless, and therefore entitled to full release, in which the Enemy Debts Department has refused release or released only in part; and, if so, if particulars can be furnished?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The responsibility for the decision in these eases rests with the Administrator, who consults the Legal Adviser to the Department as necessary, and I am not prepared to divulge the advice rendered to the Administrator by the Legal Adviser. I would, however, explain that in all cases where the Administrator of the various ex-enemy properties is satisfied by the evidence of statelessness which has been furnished to him, the property concerned is released in full forthwith, provided that it has not already been accounted for to the German Government for the credit of the claimant. In cases where the evidence is not considered satisfactory, the claims are either rejected altogether, or, where the matter is doubtful, the claim is compromised, unless the claimant prefers to proceed in the Courts.

Mr. KELLY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to furnish particulars to the House in regard to those cases where there has been compromise when statelessness has been proved?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The question is based on a misapprehension. It statelessness was proved the stateless person would be entitled to a release of his property. The only cases that are compromised are disputed cases which, like any other law action, in default of satisfactory settlement would go to the Court.

Mr. KELLY: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the rank of the officer of the enemy debts clearing office who submitted the memorandum making charges against the administration of the office; and whether facilities were afforded for him to be present at the inquiry stated to have been made and to substantiate his charges?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The officer was a temporary official holding the rank of Deputy Chief Clerk. His charges were detailed in writing in a very long memorandum, and no matters arose during the investigation on which further
statements from him were found necessary to enable the charges to be dealt with.

Mr. KELLY: In view of a memorandum being presented to the right hon. Gentleman, in which one member of the staff made charges against his chief, was there some reason why he was not called to give evidence, to substantiate or withdraw those charges?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have already answered that question several times. There was no need to call upon this gentleman, because the whole of the charges could be dealt with on the statement made in his memorandum, and for the most part on contemporaneous records.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why would it not have been better to call him in his own defence, without dismissing him?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. and gallant Member is stating what is quite inaccurate.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It was stated by the Parliamentary Secretary yesterday.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is not a case of appearing in his own defence; it is a case where a number of charges were made by him. As a matter of fact, he was not dismissed; he was given notice terminating the appointment. [Interruption.] There is every difference, as is well known, where an officer is temporarily employed. If I am challenged, I shall certainly justify the action which my Department has taken.

Mr. DAY: Was there any reason, other than the issue of the memorandum, to cause his dismissal?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The officer in question tendered his resignation. I would much rather not, unless I am pressed to do so, go into other matters relating to this officer, but, if I am pressed, I must do so.

Mr. KELLY: rose
——

Mr. SPEAKER: We have had quite enough of this question.

Mr. KELLY: When was his resignation tendered?

TRADE DISPUTES ACT (LAW SOCIETY).

Mr. AMMON: 47.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether Regulations have been framed, in accordance with Section 5 of the Trade Disputes Act, 1927, to determine the position of civil servants who are members of the Law Society?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): Regulations, dated 30th August, 1927, were made by the Treasury in pursuance of the requirements of Section 5 of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act, 1927. I am advised that the Law Society is not an organisation of which the primary object is to influence or affect the remuneration and conditions of employment of its members within the meaning of Clause 5 of the Act referred to and of the Regulations made in pursuance thereof.

Mr. AMMON: Is not the Law Society a society that maintains the professional interests of its members, although all members are not compelled to belong to it, and in what way does it differ from any other Civil Service institution?

Mr. SAMUEL: I can only say that I am advised that the Law Society does not come within the meaning of Clause 5 of the Act referred to.

Mr. AMMON: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will review it and see if there be any distinction between the Law Society and other unions.

Mr. SAMUEL: If the hon. Gentleman will put down a definite question, I will certainly review it.

Mr. HAYES: Has not the hon. Gentleman been advised by a gentleman who is a member of the Law Society?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

MEDICAL SERVICE, HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the statement in the Report of the Scottish Board of Health that the gap is widening between the standard of medical services in the Highlands and
that in the Lowlands; and what provision is being made for the maintenance and improvement of the Highlands and Islands medical service during the current year?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The statement referred to expresses the view of the Consultative Council on Highlands and Islands, whose Report I have seen and am now considering. As regards the second part of the question, the money available in the Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Fund is sufficient to maintain the medical services on their present scale during the current year. It is anticipated, however, that the fund will be exhausted by the middle of next financial year, before which time the question of what further financial provision should be made will be fully considered in the light of the whole circumstances of the case.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Will provision be made, in the meantime, for catching up the leeway as well as merely maintaining these services at the lower level to which they have fallen?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The provision for this year has been made, and will be carried out to the full.

TRAWLING, MORAY FIRTH.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made with the negotiations with foreign Powers for closing the Moray Firth to trawlers, and when this is likely to be effected?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As the hon. Baronet is aware, the question of the prohibition of trawling and other methods of fishing in the Moray Firth was remitted for consideration to a Committee of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. The Report of the Committee has been received and is under my consideration, but no decision has yet been come to with regard to the future regulation of trawling and seining in the Moray Firth outside territorial waters, nor as to the opening of negotiations with foreign Powers.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that more foreign trawlers have been seen this year in the Moray Firth than at any other time, and
that this fact is extremely annoying to the longshore fishermen who are accustomed to get their livelihood in that sea?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am aware that there has been some slight increase, but that is being kept under review.

TETANUS.

Mr. DAY: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the Report he has received on post-operation tetanus; and can he say what action he proposes to take?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Consideration of the matter is still proceeding, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will make a statement on the Report which he has received?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I cannot say definitely, but I hope it will be very shortly.

Mr. DAY: If I put down a question for next week, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to answer?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I will see.

SMALL HOLDINGS.

Mr. MACLEAN: 16 and 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) the number of applications for small holdings in Harris which have been received since 1912; how many were granted; and the acreage involved;
(2) the number of applications for small holdings in Lewis which have been received since 1912; how many were granted; and the acreage involved?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The hon. Member will find the information asked for in these questions in Appendices Nos. 1 and 2 of the Report of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland for the year ended 31st December, 1927.

Mr. MACLEAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how it is that I can find this information in the Report issued by the Scottish Board of Agriculture, but I cannot get important statistics in regard to the Islands of Lewis and Harris?

LAND SEIZURE (PROSECUTIONS, LOCHMADDY).

Mr. MACLEAN: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that Neil Macdonald and Ewan Maclennan who were sentenced to four months' imprisonment at Lochmaddy Sheriff Court on 14th June, 1928, for occupying land, intimated an appeal against that sentence to the Second Division of the Court of Session; that they were arrested and placed in Inverness Prison in spite of the intimation of appeal; that a note for liberation pending the determination of the appeal was before the Second Division of the Court of Session on Wednesday, 27th June, who ordered the interim liberation of those two men; that the ruling of the Court was that the making of the appeal to the Court of Session suspended the warrant for imprisonment; upon whose instructions the warrant for imprisonment was acted upon in defiance of the appeal; and whether any compensation will be paid to the two men for their illegal confinement?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am aware generally of the proceedings in this case and, in particular, that the Second Division of the Court of Session on 27th June ordered interim liberation of the appellants. Until the appeal is disposed of, the case is sub judice, and it would not be proper for me to make any statement regarding it.

Mr. MACLEAN: Does the fact that the case is sub judice prevent the right hon. Gentleman from informing the House who authorised the warrant to be acted upon, and the men being put into prison when the Scottish law should be known to the Scottish Law Officers, that, pending an appeal, no man should be put into prison?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I think it is quite obvious that this matter is sub judice, and I cannot discuss it.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long these men were illegally imprisoned and what disciplinary action he proposes to take against the officials responsible for this outrage?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. I have no information to show that they were illegally imprisoned, and, as the matter is sub judice, I cannot discuss it.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Court of Session has decided that these men were illegally imprisoned, and ordered their release?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Surely the question is not sub judice, whether these men were put in prison at a time that they ought not to have been put into prison when their appeal was under consideration. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman can give us an answer on that point?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As I understand it, the whole question is before the Courts, and until it is decided it will be improper for me to discuss it.

Mr. MACLEAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how that part of my question which asks who authorised the execution of the warrant and the imprisonment of these men, upon whose instructions it was executed, can come under the sub judice part of his reply? The imprisonment of these men has been declared illegal, and I am asking who authorised the illegal imprisonment of the men. That is not sub judice, and I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to reply to that point, with the assistance of the Lord Advocate, a Law Officer of the Crown.

Sir J. GILMOUR: As far as I know, this is a matter for the Court to decide.

Mr. MACLEAN: The Court has decided.

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, the Court has not decided, and, until the Court decides, there should be no interference from the hon. Member or myself.

Mr. MACPHERSON: May I ask whether the Lord Advocate can tell us who really is to blame in this case? It is not a question of law, but a question of administration. As I understand it, these men have been released because they were wrongly imprisoned.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): The interlocutor of the Court of Session, which I have seen, granted liberation ad interim. I have not all the papers in the case, but that, prima facie, is inconsistent with any suggestion that there was any illegal detention.

Mr. SHINWELL: Can the Lord Advocate say whether in fact an appeal was
intimated, and yet, in spite of that, the men were sent to prison?

The LORD ADVOCATE: It is difficult to discuss these questions by way of question and answer. With regard to the question of the hon. Member, the only report I have seen is a newspaper report of opinions expressed which is not part of the interlocutor of the Court. We are trying to get a full report. The actual judgment of the Court, however, prima facie, is inconsistent with any suggestion that the men were illegally detained. I can only speculate on what actually happened. On the point which the hon. Member has put, I know that, as far as the newspaper report went, one of the Judges seems to have indicated that the marking of the appeal was the time at which the interlocutor would be suspended, if it was held to be suspended. Even assuming that to be the decision of the whole Court, the marking of the appeal may not take place until some time after, and the men are automatically put in prison under a decision of the Sheriff; but it might have the effect of entitling them to get out of prison on the marking of the appeal. If you take it at its highest, it does not suggest that there is anything wrong in the men being put in prison as soon as the Sheriff has announced his intention.

Mr. MACLEAN: rose
——

Mr. SPEAKER: The Lord Advocate has given all the information that he can.

Mr. MACLEAN: I have a further question to put.

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot spend all the afternoon on this question. There are other questions on the Paper, and other hon. Members have an equal right to put them.

Mr. MACLEAN: I beg to give notice that I shall move the Adjournment of the House at the end of Questions.

Later——

Mr. MACLEAN: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely:
The imprisonment of Neil Macdonald and Ewan Maclennan while an appeal
against the decision of the Court has been lodged on their behalf.

Mr. SPEAKER: This matter, obviously, does not come within the terms of Standing Order No. 10, which governs the conditions under which leave can be given to move the Adjournment of the House, and, therefore, I cannot allow the hon. Member to move.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not a matter of urgent public importance that the law of this country should be administered properly and without any sign of partiality and, as the Lord Advocate himself stated, in supplementing the reply given by the Secretary of State, that these two men had practically been imprisoned while their appeal was pending, and that an application had to be made on their behalf to the Court of Session to have them released until the appeal was heard, does not that constitute a matter on which some inquiry ought to be made and some discussion take place in this House? I put it to you, Sir, with all due deference, that when these two men have, on the admission of the Secretary of State for Scotland, been waiting to receive land since May, 1912, it surely is incumbent on this House to discuss the question of their being imprisoned in spite of an appeal which they have lodged, and, consequently, their illegal detention.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have listened to all that has been said on this case, and it is quite clear to me that it does not come within Standing Order No. 10.

BLIND PERSONS (PARISH RELIEF).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that blind persons in Scotland suffer on receiving the 10s. weekly pension, in so far as it relieves the parish council of any duty towards them; that the total income remains the same after the pension is granted, but the parish council refuse to provide clothing, medical attendance, etc., which they have done formerly; and if he will issue a circular letter informing parish councils that the conditions of such persons should not be made worse because of the receipt of a pension?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not aware that persons in receipt of blind pensions, who
are regarded for purposes of poor relief as being in the same position as old age pensioners, are penalised in the manner suggested. Parish councils must, on application, consider the circumstances of each case and where it is found that the pension, together with any other resources, is inadequate for the pensioner's requirements it is the duty of the parish council to render what assistance is considered necessary. As regards the last part of the question, I do not think that the issue of a general circular is necessary, but if the hon. Member brings any particular cases of hardship to my notice I shall have inquiries made.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the Secretary of State aware of what happens to blind persons, namely, that their income remains the same, but, because they are cut off from parish relief, they are refused medical and clothing benefits? Will the right hon. Gentleman see that no penalty is inflicted in these cases?

Sir J. GILMOUR: If the hon. Member will give me particulars of any cases, I will have them inquired into.

RATING RELIEF.

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is intended that the Scottish crofter is to benefit to the same extent as other agricultural tenants under the new rating and valuation scheme?

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether under the Government rating scheme for Scotland there will be any modification or alteration of the existing method of arriving at the assessable value of a crofter's holding?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Under the scheme, it is proposed that agricultural subjects in Scotland should be rated upon one-sixth of the gross annual value. It is not proposed to alter the law which governs the ascertainment of that value. The scheme applies to agricultural subjects generally whether held by crofters or others.

Sir R. HAMILTON: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the Government estimate of the amount of relief from rating that will be given under the Government scheme to landowners,
tenants of larger farms, and small landholders, respectively, in Scotland?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The relief in respect of owners' rates is estimated at £770,000 and the relief in respect of occupiers' rates at £110,000. During the currency of existing tenancies the occupier will receive from his landlord one-half of the relief given in respect of owners' rates. It is not possible to give separately the figures applicable to tenants of larger farms and small landholders.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Can the Secretary of State give us a rough estimate as to the percentages between large and small, say, about 25 per cent. or 30 per cent.?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I think it would be unwise to make a rough estimate; we had better wait and see.

LAND COURT (PLANS).

Sir R. HAMILTON: 23.
asked the Lord Advocate whether when expensive plans are required by the Land Court for the consideration of applications for the apportionment of runrig lands, there is any provision by which the expense of providing such plans may not fall on the applicants?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have been asked to reply. The answer is in the negative. In such cases the initial charge falls, in accordance with the ordinary procedure observed in Courts of Law, upon the applicants, and I do not think that any other rule would be workable.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is difficult for small crofters to find the necessary sum to prepare these expensive plans?

Sir J. GILMOUR: It is rather difficult to find any other way of dealing with a problem of this kind.

BROADCASTING (WICK STATION).

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 28.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the frequent interruptions to which users of wireless receiving sets are subjected in Wick and other parts of Caithness and the north-east of Sutherland by the Wick wireless transmitting station, he is yet in a position to state when continuous wave equipment will be installed in Wick in place of the present spark apparatus?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): Extensive building operations will be necessary before the new equipment can be installed at the Wick station, and as the work of reconstruction must be carried out without interfering with the normal working of the station it will, necessarily, occupy a considerable time. The preparation of plans and specifications is at present in hand, and it is hoped to complete the work during next year.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY (ACCIDENTS).

Mr. BATEY: 24.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of boys under 18 years of age who have been killed and the number injured in the coal mines of Great Britain for the years 1925 and 1927?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): During the year 1925, 120 boys under 18 years of age were killed and 21,419 disabled for more than three days by accidents at mines under the Coal Mines Act. The corresponding figures for 1927 were 88 and 18,832, respectively.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the Secretary for Mines give us any estimate of the number of shift days worked by persons under the age of 18 years?

Commodore KING: Not without notice.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman inform us the nature of the accidents which have accounted for these injuries? Was it a fall of roof?

Commodore KING: I cannot answer that question without notice.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Do not these figures impress on the hon. and gallant Member's mind the need for legislation?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

IMMINGHAM-GRIMSBY ROAD SCHEME.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 25.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will now consider the construction of the Immingham-Grimsby direct road, having in view the unemployment in the area and the length of the only available existing road?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): Although the construction
of this road has been advocated on several occasions by the Grimsby Corporation, I am not aware that any definite scheme with estimates has ever been drawn up, and I have been no evidence that financial support would be forthcoming from the other local authorities affected. The initiation of such projects rests with the responsible highway authorities.

Mr. SPEAKER: Sir Robert Thomas——

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the matter his favourable consideration?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am prepared to consider the scheme, but favourable consideration will have to depend on the amount of money I have got.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. You called Question No. 26. Is the hon. and gallant Member in order in persisting in asking a supplementary question after an hon. Member has put his question?

Mr. SPEAKER: No, strictly speaking, an hon. Member is not right in insisting upon asking a supplementary question after the next question has been called.

Sir R. THOMAS: Will you then call the hon. and gallant Member to order?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must realise that it is impossible to give satisfaction to everybody.

LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN SUBURBAN LINES (ELECTRIFICATION).

Sir R. THOMAS: 26.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, seeing that civil engineering difficulties at Liverpool Street Station are largely responsible for the delay in formulating an electrification scheme for the suburban lines of the London and North Eastern Railway Company, any plan for overcoming these difficulties is now under consideration?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am informed by the railway company that their traffic and technical officers are at present engaged in considering the question of the electrification of the suburban lines leading into Liverpool Street Station.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is the Minister aware that the London and North Eastern Railway Company have been considering this question for many years,
but that nothing has been done, in spite of the appalling, and even dangerous, congestion at Liverpool Street?

Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: Does the Minister propose to put into operation the recommendations of the committee which he himself set up, to inquire into travelling facilities in the East End of London?

Colonel ASHLEY: My recollection is that the committee did not make any recommendations which I myself can carry out and that I can only carry them out with the co-operation of various bodies. As to the question put by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell), I know that this matter has been a long time under consideration, but, after all, it is a matter for the railway company, and I have no power to compel them to act.

Sir R. THOMAS: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman try to expedite the matter?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have been trying to expedite it for three years.

MOTOR CYCLES (SILENCERS).

Sir R. THOMAS: 27.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the continued noisiness of motor cycles, particularly in regard to the silencing of the exhaust, he will institute an inquiry into the technical difficulties of the silencer question, inviting the co-operation of the Autocycle Union and the manufacturers' associations?

Colonel ASHLEY: I do not think that all motor cycles can be said to be excessively noisy. The proceedings which the Police take for infraction of the regulations with regard to the fitting of efficient silencers will, I hope, result in the elimination of motor cycles which are unsatisfactory in this respect, and I do not think that it is for me to undertake a technical inquiry such as the hon Member suggests.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Is it not the case that there are no technical difficulties in the way of equipping these machines with efficient silencers?

Colonel ASHLEY: My hon. Friend may be right, but I am not so advised by my technical advisers.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

MOTOR TRANSPORT.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 29.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of motor cycles and sidecars employed in rural areas in England for the delivery of parcels; and if, in view of the difficulties experienced by rural postmen in coping with large numbers of parcels, he will consider increasing the deliveries by this means?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The number of motor cycles and motor cycle combinations at present in use by the Post Office for the conveyance of mails is about 380. These vehicles are mainly employed in rural districts on services which include parcel delivery. The Post Office is fully alive to the advantages of motor transport and its use is being continually extended.

Mr. HAYES: Are these cycles fitted with efficient silencers?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Yes.

TELEGRAPH CHARGES (REFUND).

Colonel ENGLAND: 30.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that in connection with an overpaid telegram on which there is a small refund the recipient of a postal draft from the Post Office is obliged to go to the place of transmission of the original telegram to cash it, he is aware that this procedure may entail the expenditure of from six to ten times the value of the refund; and whether, under these circumstances, he will consider some other way of avoiding this inconvenience to the public?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Yes, Sir. I will give instructions that any postal draft for a small amount issued in refundment of a telegraph charge shall in future be payable at any post office, unless there is some special reason for making it payable at a particular office only.

POSTAL CHEQUE SYSTEM.

Mr. AMMON: 31.
asked the Postmaster-General whether the Report of the Sub-Committee of the Post Office Advisory Council on the postal cheque system has yet been presented?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The Report in question has been received and the question of giving effect to its recommendations is under consideration.

Mr. AMMON: Will the Report be made public?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am always averse from going to the expense of printing a report unless I have reason to believe that there is any general desire for it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will make representations through the usual channels if he really wishes that this Report should be laid, and I will see what can be done.

TRANS-ATLANTIC TELEPHONE SERVICE.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 32.
asked the Postmaster General the average number of telephone calls originating in Great Britain to the United States of America and Canada between the hours of 12.30 p.m. and 11 p.m., British time, on Sundays during the present year?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Approximately five, or including calls of Continental origin, 11.7.

Mr. DAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that some reduction in the closing down of the service on Sunday would lead to its greater use?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: At the moment I am not sorry to have a little spare time on Sunday, as Sunday is used for experimental work.

INLAND TELEGRAPH SERVICE.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 33.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, with a view to popularising and increasing the output of telegrams, he will consider making no charge for address or signature?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The free transmission of the address in an inland telegram was abolished in 1885, and I do not favour the re-introduction of a system which was far from satisfactory.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that the countries which go in for giving these facilities are those which make the most money out of telegrams?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I do not know if that is generally true. I can only say what has been the experience in
this country. Our experience has been that with a system of no charge for addresses, the addresses tended to get longer and longer until in 1871 the average address was 12 words.

Sir R. THOMAS: Is it not a fact that telegrams at the present rate show a loss?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: That is well known.

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Tinker—

Sir R. THOMAS: May I ask the Postmaster-General in that case is there any use in—

Mr. STEPHEN: On a point of Order. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Anglesea (Sir R. Thomas) to put a supplementary question after another hon. Member has been called?

Sir R. THOMAS: I apologise. I did not hear the hon. Member being called.

GUIDE.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 48.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the average circulation of the Post Office Guide, the cost of production, the revenue derived from sales and advertisements, respectively, and the number of free copies issued?

Mr. SAMUEL: As the reply contains a number of figures covering the Supplement to the Post Office Guide as well as the Guide itself, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The Post Office Guide is issued in complete form twice a year, in January and July. A Supplement is issued in April and October. The information asked for by the hon. Member is as follows:

Post Office Guide.
Post Office Guide Supplement.


Average total circulation per issue
57,680
47,755


Cost of production
£4,300
£300


Revenue from sales (approximate)
£1,430
£210


Revenue from advertisements
£150
£10


Free copies issued
29,175
31,100

Practically all the free issues are made to the Post Office and other Government Departments for official purposes.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

NEED PENSIONS.

Mr. TINKER: 34 and 35.
asked the Minister of Pensions (1) if he has received a resolution from the Bolton, Leigh and district war pensions committee, in which they urge him not to take into consideration the old age pension when assessing the need pension, and asking him to have a revision of such cases where the old age pension has been used to lower, or take away altogether, the need pension; and, if so, will he give favourable consideration to the appeal:
(2) if his attention has been called to a resolution passed by the Bolton, Leigh and district war pensions committee protesting against need pensions being taken away before they have been consulted, as they claim that if he got their views before the change was made some of the reductions would not take place; and will he state what he intends to do in the matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): I have received the two resolutions referred to, which are, I fear, based on a misunderstanding of the nature of this class of pension. The amount of a pension based on need is determined by reference to the resources of the claimant, and as such it is necessarily subject to modification by way of increase as well as decrease, as the case may be, in the event of any permanent change in the circumstances of the pensioner. Account must, therefore, necessarily be taken of the grant of an old age pension, as was indeed expressly contemplated by the Widows and Orphans Pensions Act of 1925. I should have no authority to disregard one source of income in preference to another in determining the amount of a pension, nor to undertake to consult the war pensions committee on every occasion, as is suggested, before making an award. At the same time, I may point out that any pensioner is entitled, if dissatisfied with the decision of the Ministry, to make a complaint to the war pensions committee, whose reasons for supporting the complaint, if they did so, would always be very carefully considered.

TREATMENT.

Colonel ENGLAND: 36.
asked the Minister of Pensions the number of cases in which treatment is being given although no pension is paid?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I regret that the records of the Ministry do not enable this information to be given.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN (RE-SETTLEMENT GRANTS).

Colonel ENGLAND: 37.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether grants are still being made by his Department to establish ex-service men in business; and, if so, how many such awards have been made within the last 12 months, and mainly to what purpose?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I have been asked to reply. Grants to ex-Service men are still being made in exceptional cases as indicated in the reply given on 8th March last to the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Robinson) of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy. 114 such grants have been awarded within the last 12 months, mainly for the purpose of establishing men in small businesses.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Does the money for this purpose come under the Vote for the Ministry of Labour or under the Vote for the Ministry of Pensions?

Mr. BETTERTON: It falls within the Vote for the Ministry of Labour.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFFORESTATION.

Mr. DAY: 38.
asked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, at what date the Forestry Commissioners decided upon the points with respect to the new afforestation programme due to commence in April next?

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE: I have been asked to reply. The date was the 30th November, 1927.

Mr. DAY: Have the Government made up their mind with regard to this programme which is due shortly, and are not the public entitled to know something about it?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: I am not in a position to state.

Oral Answers to Questions — RECTOR OF AVENING (PROCEEDINGS).

Mr. AMMON: 39.
asked the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Leeds, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the amount of cost to the Ecclesiastical Commission in connection with the proceedings taken against the rector of Avening, Gloucestershire, under the Benefices (Ecclesiastical Duties) Measure, 1926?

Major BIRCHALL (Ecclesiastical Commissioner): The costs to be paid by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are those incurred by the Bishop. I am unable to state the amount, as no bill of costs has yet been presented. I shall be glad to communicate further with the hon. Gentleman when the information is available.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 41.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many teachers employed under full-time agreements by local education authorities in grant-aided secondary schools and technical schools, respectively, have not been allowed to participate in the benefits under the Teachers' Superannuation Act on the ground that this service does not comply with the Board's Regulations; and in what respect in each case do the conditions fail to comply?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): As indicated in Circular 1390 (a copy of which, together with the two previous Circulars, I am sending the hon. Member), the Board accept the annual returns, submitted by local authorities and governing bodies, of teachers employed by them in full-time contributory service under the Teachers' Superannuation Act, 1925, and I am accordingly unable to say how many teachers in the categories referred to by the hon. Member have not been included in those returns.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (HOT WATER SUPPLY).

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Education what action he proposes to take in cases where the Board have suggested that the hot water supply in elementary schools should be extended to the medical inspection room and to certain other rooms, and the London County Council have refused to comply.

Lord E. PERCY: Each case must, I think, be considered on its merits in the light of the representations made by the authority. I am at present in communication with the Council in regard to a particular case.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Will the noble Lord press this matter on the London County Council and the education authorities as it is a very important matter?

Lord E. PERCY: As I have said, I must take each case on its merits, and I cannot give a general statement.

SUPPLEMENTARY TEACHERS.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 43.
asked the President of the Board of Education what is the total number of supplementary teachers; how many apointments of supplementary teachers have been approved each year since 1919–20; how many authorities provide pensions for supplementary teachers; and to what age-groups do supplementary teachers belong, classified as follows: 20 to 30 years, 30 to 40 years, 40 to 50 years, 50 to 60 years, and 60 years and over.

Lord E. PERCY: The number of supplementary teachers on the 31st March, 1927, the latest date for which complete returns are available, was 8,734. I am unable to state the number of supplementary teachers appointed by local authorities during each of the years referred to by the hon. Member: but he will find a summary of total number of supplementary teachers employed in public elementary schools over a series of years, including the years in question, in Table 36 on page 31 of the Annual Statistics of Public Education for 1925–26. The particulars asked for in the remaining parts of the question are not available as the service of individual supplementary teachers is not recorded by the Board.

Mr. STEPHEN: Are supplementary teachers still being appointed?

Lord E. PERCY: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS UNION.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any official or semi-official recognition is given to the League of Nations Union by the League of Nations.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY (PRICES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 45.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether be has any information as to the existence of a price-fixing ring or agreement between the Anglo-American, Royal Dutch Shell and Anglo-Persian Oil Companies; and what is his information.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I am informed that it is the practice of the three companies named to act in agreement when the movement of world prices justifies a rise or fall in prices in this country.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the light hon. Gentleman any information as to how long it has been the custom to act in restraint of trade in this way?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have no information except what I have given, but I do not think that a fair consideration would lead to any suggestion that there has been an over-charge to the public.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that the point is the danger of loss of independence by this company in which we have invested our money?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am told there is no loss of independence.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are reports made periodically by these directors, and, if so, when was the last report?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to a Paper which was laid in 1914 and which gives a full account of the actual subjects on which the Government have a regular and established right to intervene, and also explains the limits which they put on their intervention. If the hon. Member will read that Paper he will see how very strictly our action is defined.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: If this price-fixing agreement is detrimental to British consumers, what action does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I really cannot deal with a hypothetical question of that kind.

Mr. PALING: Are we to understand that the Government have no established right to interfere with this question of price-fixing?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I must again ask the hon. Gentleman to read this Command Paper, from which he will see that we defined our rights, and the limits within which we would exercise them, and also specified certain directions in which we would not intervene. We are bound by that absolutely.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Government directors are on the board of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company; whether this number is in proportion to the share holding of the Treasury in accordance with the right of appointment laid down in Cmd. 7419 of 1914, paragraph 4; and, if not, whether it is proposed to nominate extra Government directors?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The number of Government directors on the board of the company remains two, as in 1914. The answers to the last two parts of the question are in the negative. It has not been found necessary for His Majesty's Government to exercise their right to nominate a larger number of directors in proportion to their share in the company.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that in the Command Paper to which he has referred my hon. Friends, he has a definite right to appoint extra directors, and, in view of the growing
importance of an independent oil supply, does he not think that right should be exercised?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, we already have a plenary veto in regard to matters in which we are interested, and which are directly set out in the Command Paper referred to. We have the fullest possible power, and no addition to our power could be made by appointing more directors.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Would not extra directors be able to keep in closer touch with the business, and inform the right hon. Gentleman more fully?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that this business has been extraordinarily well run, and that the British Government and people have done extraordinarily well out of it?

Oral Answers to Questions — PANAMA CANAL (TRAFFIC).

Sir R. THOMAS: 49.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the increased volume of traffic passing through the Panama Canal and of the fact that the American Steamship Owners Association has passed a resolution asking that the hours during which shipping is passed through the canal should be extended, he will intimate to the United States Government that His Majesty's Government is in accord with this resolution?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The matter is one for decision by the United States Government, which doubtless has all the facts of the case at its disposal. Representations of the nature suggested by the hon. Member do not therefore appear to be called for.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING (STATISTICS).

Sir JOHN POWER: 50.
asked the Minister of Health the number of houses built during the six months ended 31st March and, for comparison, the corresponding figures during each of the three previous half-years?

The PARLIAMENTARY-SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): 76,751 houses were completed in England and Wales during the six months ended 31st March, 1928.
The corresponding figures for the half-years ended in September, 1927, March, 1927, and September, 1926, were 162,163, 111,066 and 106,563 respectively.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the present rate of progress?

Sir K. WOOD: I should like to see much improvement, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will help me.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

CASUALS.

Mr. SHEPHERD: 51.
asked the Minister of Health the reason for the instruction of his Department requiring that casuals are to be searched on entering a casual ward?

Sir K. WOOD: The object of this search is to discover whether the casual is in possession of money or articles the retention of which might be prejudicial to discipline or good order. The instruction to which the hon. Member refers does not originate with my right hon. Friend, but reflects a provision originally contained in Section 10 of the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1848, and mow to be found in Section 72 of the Poor Law Consolidation Act, 1927.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that is does not have that effect at all? Does he realise what an utterly degrading thing it is to do to these men, whose only fault is that they are unemployed?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. I think it is a very necessary precaution that should be taken.

Mr. SHEPHERD: 52.
asked the Minister of Health whether be is aware that many casuals are each night compelled to sleep on the floor, generally stone or concrete; and whether, in cases where this is the result of insufficient accommodation, he will instruct boards of guardians at least to provide boards to protect the men from direct contact with the stone or concrete?

Sir K. WOOD: The regulations require the guardians to provide proper sleeping accommodation and my right hon. Friend has, as at present advised, no ground for supposing that they are not observed.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that in cold weather at least half the inhabitants of casual wards sleep either on concrete or stone, with nothing between them and the concrete or stone?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir, but if the hon. Gentleman will send me particulars, I will inquire into them.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Has not the right hon. Gentleman's Department inspectors who ought to know these things?

Mr. SHEPHERD: 53.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will issue such instructions to boards of guardians as will ensure the release of casuals sufficiently early in the morning to ensure their having sufficient time both to seek employment and to reach the next casual ward on the evening of release from the previous one?

Sir K. WOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the provisions of Article 9 of the Casual Poor (Relief) Order, 1925, of which I sent him a copy on the 13th of last month. These provisions seem to my right hon. Friend adequately to deal with the point which he raises.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this matter is being adequately dealt with, as the majority of these men do not leave the casual wards until 11 or 11.30 in the morning, after which time they have both to seek for a job and walk 15 to 20 miles to the next casual ward?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir, the Regulations provide that, if a casual represents to the roaster that he desires to seek work, he is allowed to make his discharge at 6.30 on the morning of the day on which he is entitled to be discharged.

Mr. SHEPHERD: I am complaining of the way in which the regulations are carried out. Will the right hon. Gentleman go outside any casual ward any day and see the time at which the men actually leave?

RELIEF (CHILDREN'S WAR PENSIONS).

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 54.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in some instances boards of guardians in granting relief take into account the pensions of war orphans which are granted for the sole mainteance of those
orphans and not for the general use of the family; and whether he will take steps to have this practice stopped?

Sir K. WOOD: It is the duty of a board of guardians, in considering whether destitution is present and what relief, if any, should be granted, to take into consideration, subject to certain statutory exceptions which do not include pensions to children of fathers killed in the War, all the means of subsistence available to the applicant. In practice it is not possible to divide the expenditure of a family in the manner suggested in the question, and the matter is not one in which my right hon. Friend has any authority to instruct the guardians to revise their practice.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANCIENT GRAVEYARDS, WALES.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 55.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the refusal of many local authorities in Wales to undertake the control of the ancient graveyards, as provided in the Welsh Church Act; that, in consequence of this refusal and of the absence of any funds by the Welsh Church Commissioners for the purpose, the graveyards are falling into disrepair; and whether he is prepared to take action in the matter?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): I have been asked to reply. Yes, Sir, it is the case that a large number of local authorities have refused to accept the transfer of the burial grounds and that, in consequence, some of them are falling into a state of disrepair. Though it is within the power of the Secretary of State to transfer them compulsorily, my right hon. Friend is very loath to exercise any coercion in this matter; and in the hope that they had found a way out which would be satisfactory to all parties, the Government introduced a Bill last year to enable the grounds in such cases to be transferred to the representative body of the Church of Wales. Unfortunately the proposal has met with a considerable amount of opposition in this House and there has not been time so far to proceed with it. A decision on the matter cannot however be much longer delayed
and my right hon. Friend hopes to be able to take up the matter again at an early opportunity.

Sir R. THOMAS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this matter has been before the Welsh National Parliamentary party, and that a deputation has been appointed by that body to interview the church authorities of Wales in order to endeavour to arrive at a settlement?

Sir V. HENDERSON: Yes, I am aware of that fact.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Can the hon. Gentleman say why there has been such strong objection to the taking over of the burial grounds by the local authorities?

Sir V. HENDERSON: I do not think that that arises on this question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ASSESSMENT COMMITTEES.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 56 and 57.
asked the Minister of Health (1) whether, seeing that all rating authorities and other precepting and administrative bodies under the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, have separate associations of their own to which they can subscribe and which hold general meetings at which representatives from all constituent bodies can attend and discuss matters relating to their powers and duties, he will state why he has hitherto withheld his approval to assessment committees having a similar association of their own;
(2) whether, seeing that a large number of new assessment committees under the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, have indicated their desire to become affiliated with a national association representative of the assessment committees as constituted to-day, and as there are many legal questions with regard to the work of individual assessment committees upon which it would be advantageous for them to consult, not only in the interests of themselves but the ratepayers, he will consider giving the official recognition of his Department to such an association?

Sir K. WOOD: It is true that a number of assessment committees have indicated a desire for affiliation to a national association, and it is also true that representative associations of local authorities have taken exception to the suggestion. The Central Valuation Com-
mittee, which is composed of members and officers of all the classes of local authorities which are represented on assessment committees, has been constituted in pursuance of a specific provision in the Eating and Valuation Act, 1925, for the purpose of promoting uniformity of valuation. That committee draws its funds from local authorities, and my right hon. Friend does not feel justified in encouraging the creation of another body financed from the same sources which would, to a large extent, duplicate the work of the Central Valuation Committee.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Does not that mean that the right hon. Gentleman is going to do nothing to give effect to the desires of these assessment committees?

Sir K. WOOD: As the hon. Member knows, there is a division of opinion on the matter, and my right hon. Friend is reluctant to impose burdens on local authorities.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: But is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is a preponderating opinion in favour of these assessment committees being granted this facility? Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter in view of the fact that assessment committees are doing peculiar work, and that it is essential that a measure of co-operation between them should be secured?

Sir K. WOOD: The Central Valuation Committee serves most of the purposes required, and we cannot put further expenses on the local authority.

Mr. LUNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no uniformity in regard to assessments, and would it not be advisable that these committees should not be allowed to have an association which is not provided for in the Act of 1925 or in the present Bill, so that we could have something approaching uniformity in assessments throughout the country?

Sir K. WOOD: There is an increasing amount of uniformity, and it was for the purpose of securing that that the Central Valuation Committee was constituted.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

UNINSURED WORKERS.

Sir J. POWER: 58.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is in a position to make any estimate of the increase in the number of uninsured workers in employment during the last four years?

Mr. BETTERTON: I regret there are no statistics available upon which such an estimate could be based.

JUVENILES.

Mr. KELLY: 59.
asked the Minister of Labour whether consideration has been given by his Department to the subject of unemployment among juveniles in all parts of the country; if so, what action has been taken to deal with this problem and what effort has been made to place young people in employment; and have the various juvenile advisory committees presented reports giving the class of work available now and in the future, with proposals for training and after care?

Mr. BETTERTON: As the reply is necessarily long and contains important detail, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. KELLY: Are there any figures indicating the number of young people in respect of whom action has been taken?

Mr. BETTERTON: If the hon. Member will look in the second paragraph of this answer, he will find a full statement on the point he has raised.

Following is the reply:

The problem of unemployment among juveniles is under constant review by the Department, both in its relation to the general unemployment position and in its special aspects.

Continuous effort is made through the machinery of the Ministry and through the juvenile employment bureaux of local education authorities, to minimise unemployment by guiding boys and girls to a wise choice of occupation and by placing them in suitable vacancies. A full account of this work is given in the Annual Reports of the Ministry, and I would also invite attention to the last Annual Report of juvenile advisory com-
mittees, with which the hon. Member is, of course, familiar. In each year, some 300,000 juveniles, on leaving school, seek the advice of the juvenile committees in their area, and last year 264,662 juveniles were placed in employment through these agencies as compared with 207,221 in 1924.

A system of juvenile unemployment centres has been established in conjunction with local education authorities in most districts where there is any appreciable unemployment among juveniles; there are at present 97 such centres open, with a daily average attendance of about 5,500. I should add that under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927, power was taken to make a grant from the Unemployment Fund towards the cost of these juvenile unemployment centres.

The whole question of the adequacy of the arrangements for enabling young persons to enter into and retain suitable employment has recently been the subject of inquiry by two Committees, one for England and Wales and one for Scotland. These Committees recommended that there should be appointed national advisory councils for juvenile employment, representative of all the different interests concerned. These recommendations have been accepted by the Government: the English council has been appointed and has held three meetings, and my right hon. Friend hopes shortly to announce the composition of the Scottish council.

The various juvenile committees present periodical reports of their work dealing, among other things, with the demand for and the supply of juvenile labour in their area. They have also recently undertaken at my right hon. Friend's request, a special review of the position now arising out of the diminished birthrate in the War years. My right hon. Friend has not yet received all of their reports on this subject, but proposes to refer them, together with any questions which arise out of them in regard to training and the after-care of boys or girls who find employment away from home, to the national advisory councils for consideration and advice.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD PRICES (BACON).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware
that the retail price of bacon has increased by 3d. per pound during the past three weeks; and if the Food Council is inquiring into the cause of the increase?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: My information is that an increase varying from 1d. to 4d. a pound has occurred since the end of May in the retail price of Danish bacon, but that no increase appears to have taken place in the retail prices of other kinds, including Wiltshire and Irish bacon. The rise in the retail price of Danish bacon follows an advance in wholesale prices from the exceptionally low level reached early this year. I understand that the rise in prices is attributed in the trade to the larger demand which had been stimulated by the unusually low prices. I am also informed that bacon prices usually increase at this time of the year. I do not think that any special inquiry into the matter is called for.

Mr. HARDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this price includes the skin and bone, as retailed?

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD AND LADY INCHCAPE (GIFT TO THE NATION).

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have to inform the House that I have received, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and have accepted an important gift to the nation. In memory of the Hon. Elsie Mackay, who perished in attempting the passage of the Atlantic by aeroplane, Lord and Lady Inchcape and their children desire, as none of them want to benefit by her death, to place in trust for the nation the sum of £500,000, the residue of her estate which passed to them. Their wish is that this gift should ultimately be applied in reduction of the National Debt. They propose that it should accumulate for a period of roughly 50 years, unless by some earlier date the proceeds with other funds available should be sufficient to redeem the whole of the liabilities of the State. This fund will accordingly be called the "Elsie Mackay Fund."

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

William Nathaniel Jones, esquire, for the County of Carmarthen (Carmarthen Division).

LIQUOR (POPULAR CONTROL) BILL,

"to amend the Law relating to the manufacture, sale and supply of intoxicating liquor, and to provide for the popular control thereof and of the grant and renewal of licences; and for other purposes incidental thereto," presented by Mr. Amnion; supported by Miss Bondfield, Mr. Broad, Mr. Rhys Davies, Mr. David Grenfell, Mr. James Hudson, Mr. Morgan Jones, Dr. Salter, Mr. Philip Snowden, Mr. Viant, Mr. Webb and Mr. Robert Young; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 17th July, and to be printed. [Bill 165.]

DUDLEY CORPORATION BILL.

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

GREENOCK AND PORT GLASGOW TRAMWAYS COMPANY BILL. [Lords.]

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Lieut.-Colonel Gault, Sir Alfred Hopkinson, The Solictor-General, The Solicitor-General for Scotland, and Sir Alexander Sprot; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Cooper Rawson, Captain Cunningham Reid, Sir Frederick Rice, Sir Rennell Rodd, and Major Yerburgh.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Registration (Births, Deaths, and Marriages) Bill): Mr. Rhys Davies, Dr. Vernon Davies, Mr. Everard, Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle, Captain Gunston, Mr. Lansbury, Mr. March, Lieut.-Colonel Ruggles-Brise, Mrs. Runciman, and Sir Kingsley Wood.

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had
added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Administration of Justice Bill [Lords]): The Attorney-General, Mr. Buchanan, Sir Walter Greaves-Lord, Sir Hamar Greenwood, Sir Robert Hamilton, Sir Malcolm Macnaghten, Mr. Oliver, Mr. Pilcher, Sir Henry Slesser, and Mr. Withers.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

AGRICULTURAL CREDITS BILL,

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 166.]

MESSAGE PROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

South West Suburban Water Bill,

Middlesex and Surrey (Thames Bridges, Etc.) Bill,

Bury and District Joint Water Board Bill, with Amendments.

INDIAN HIGH COURTS BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 167.]

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL

Further considered in Committee [Progress, 27th June].

[Mr. DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of 10 and 11 Geo. V., c. 18, Section 22.)

Section twenty-two of the Finance Act, 1920 (which provides for a deduction from assessable income in respect of dependent relatives), shall have effect as if for the words "twenty-five pounds" there were substituted the words "fifty pounds."—[Mr. Montague.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I submit to the Minister that this new Clause deals with persons who are worthy of generous treatment from the House of Commons. Already in the Bill an increased allowance has been made in respect of children, and I strongly appeal to the Chancellor to grant this further concession, because I take it that no very large amount is involved. A single man who has his mother to keep is, to all intents and purposes, a married man without children. He has a home to keep going, and he has the same responsibilities and the same risks of unemployment. We are not asking for a new allowance, but simply for an increase. I am sure there is no body of people to whom such an allowance would be of more value and more acceptable. We are dealing with a class of person who have all the responsibility of home life and whom we are told are the basis of our national and Imperial position. In such a case, I do not think it is an unreasonable thing to ask that they should have an increase in this allowance from £25 to £50.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): I am afraid that I cannot ask the Committee to support this proposal. The same Amendment was put down last year. A similar proposal was moved in 1924 and again in 1925 and 1926, and rejected. This question of the allowance for dependent relatives
was considered by the Royal Commission on Income Tax, and the present law embodies, with a minor modification in favour of the taxpayer, the result of their deliberations on this matter. In any cafe, we have not the money to spare and we are unable to accept the Amendment. I would like to point out that this concession would involve a loss of revenue to the extent of £600,000 in a full year and £300,000 in the present year. As we have not the money to spare, I ask the hon. Member not to press the Clause.

Mr. MARCH: I very much regret to hear the Financial Secretary speaking in the manner that he has done. One would have thought that the Financial Secretary had a little benevolence left which would induce him to do something to meet very hard cases of this kind. We have to remember that the times are not so good as they were in 1924 when the Labour party had this question before them. It is probably a good thing for the Conservative Government to be able to fall back upon what happened in 1924. It is quite, true that in that year the Labour party did not do everything they wanted to do, but they did a great deal more than the present Government have ever done for the benefit of the working classes. The Government have been doing things for those who have and nothing for those who have not. I know there are many hard cases in which men are doing their best to keep their relatives from applying to the boards of guardians, but, by refusing this proposal, the Government are giving them very little encouragement to go on making the sacrifices which they are making at at the present time. I know many hard cases, and, if this proposal did cost £600,000 a year, that is nothing like the amount of the concession which was made for the children. The cost of living, clothing, and rent are exceedingly different from what they were in 1924. I think these people deserve the sympathy and assistance they are asking for, and I certainly expected better treatment at the hands of the Government.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 133; Noes, 220.

Division No. 227.]
AYES.
[3.57 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardle, George D.
Riley, Ben


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayday, Arthur
Ritson, J.


Ammon, Charles George
Hayes, John Henry
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, G. H.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Barnes, A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Batey, Joseph
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Bondfield, Margaret
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scurr, John


Bowerman, Rt. Hon, Charles W.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Sexton, James


Briant, Frank
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bromfield, William
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shinwell, E.


Bromley, J.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sitch, Charles H.


Cape, Thomas
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smillie, Robert


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kennedy, T.
Snell, Harry


Connolly, M.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cove, W. G.
Lawrence, Susan
Stamford, T. W.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lee, F.
Stephen, Campbell


Dalton, Hugh
Lindley, F. W.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Livingston A. M.
Strauss, E. A.


Day, Harry
Lowth, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Dunnico, H.
Lunn, William
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Edge, Sir William
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aboravoa)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Thurtle, Ernest


England, Colonel A.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Tinker, John Joseph


Fenby, T. D.
Macpherson, Rt- Hon. James I.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Forrest, W.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Varley, Frank B.


Gibbins, Joseph
March, S.
Viant, S. P.


Gillett, George M.
Maxton, James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gosling, Harry
Montague, Frederick
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Whiteley, W.


Greenall, T.
Mosley, Oswald
Wiggins, William Martin


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Murnin, H.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Groves, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Windsor, Walter


Grundy, T. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wright, W.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Potts, John S.



Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Campbell, E. T.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Fielden, E. B.


Albery, Irving James
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Finburgh, S.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Fraser, Captain Ian


Apsley, Lord
Chapman, Sir S.
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Charterls, Brigadier-General J.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Chilcott, Sir Warden
Gates, Percy


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Christie, J. A.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Gower, Sir Robert


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Grant, Sir J. A.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Bethel, A.
Cooper, A. Duff
Grotrian, H. Brent


Betterton, Henry B.
Cope, Major Sir William
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Blundell, F. N.
Couper, J. B.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hacking, Douglas H.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Brass, Captain W.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hammersley, S. S.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hanbury, C.


Briggs, J. Harold
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Briscoe, Richard George
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Harrison, G. J. C.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hartington, Marquess of


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Haslam, Henry C.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Buchan, John
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxford, Henley)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Drewe, C.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Bullock, Captain M.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Henn Sir Sydney H.


Burman, J. B.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Holt, Capt. H. P.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hopkins, J. W. W.




Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Smithers, Waldron


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Moore, Lieut.-colonel T. C. A. (Ayr)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Hunter-Weston Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Hurd, Percy A.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Lliffe, Sir Edward M.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Iveagh, Countess of
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth. Cen'l)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn).W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Stuart, Hon, J. (Moray and Nairn)


Jephcott, A. R.
Nuttall, Ellis
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Oman, Sir Charles William C
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Penny, Frederick George
Templeton, W. P.


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Percy. Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Lamb, J. O.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Tinne, J. A.


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Pilcher, G.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Pliditch, Sir Philip
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Power, Sir John Cecil
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Loder, J. de V.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Long, Major Eric
Preston, William
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Looker, Herbert William
Price, Major C. W. M.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Lougher, Lewis
Radford, E. A.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Ramsden, E.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Herman
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Wells, S. R.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ropner, Major L.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


McLean, Major A.
Mussel), Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Macmillan, Captain H.
Rye, F. G.
Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Salmon, Major I.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sandon, Lord
Withers, John James


Malone, Major P. B.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Womersley, W. J.


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Savery, S. S.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Margesson, Captain D.
Shepperson, E. W.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Skelton, A. N.
Wragg, Herbert


Meyer, Sir Frank
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)



Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Captain Bowyer and Captain Wallace

NEW CLAUSE.—(Extension of s. 19 of Finance Act, 1920, as amended by ss. 21 and 22 of Finance Act, 1924.)

Section nineteen of the Finance Act, 1920 (which makes provision for a deduction in respect of relatives taking charge of widowers' or widows' children), as amended by Sections twenty-one and twenty-two of the Finance Act, 1924, shall be extended so as to apply to a person resident with an unmarried person in the capacity of housekeeper where the unmarried person proves that his income from all sources does not exceed five hundred pounds.—[Mr. T. Williams.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Finance Act, 1920, Section 19, provided that a widower who employed a female relative to take care of his children, was allowed £45 per annum for that purpose. The Finance Act, 1924, extended that provision. Section 21 of that Act increased the allowance from £45 to £60, while Section 22 extended the provision of the 1920 Act to include a person who acted in the capacity of housekeeper regardless of any children. This has created anomalies which, I presume, we shall always have with any
Finance Act, but here is an anomaly which, I think, the Committee might very well feel disposed to remove. Let me illustrate the point I want to make by referring to the case, for instance, of two head teachers in one school. The male head teacher may have a person performing the housekeeping duties for him, and would be allowed £60 under the Finance Act, 1924, but in the case of the head teacher of the girls' section of the school who is unmarried, but who has a sister at home performing the domestic duties, the two sisters living together and being mutually helpful, the person who remains at home performing the domestic duties and being absolutely maintained out of the salary of the head teacher, no allowance in a case of that description is made.
It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman might very well agree to this concession, which would be a comparatively small one, and would not involve any immorality. Neither would it involve any great changes to remove that anomaly, and grant to the woman the concession on the same terms as the man. It may be that the hon. Gentleman may not feel disposed to support any
Amendment which develops the idea of celibacy, but, at least, I think one can claim that while the concession is available for men in exactly identical circumstances, the same concession ought to be available for women. The hon. Gentleman may tell us that the Income Tax assessors are able to grant certain concessions, but I have in my mind at least one case in which a head mistress absolutely and entirely maintains her sister, who performs the domestic duties at home, the two sisters living happily together, and no allowance at all is granted, and annually the head mistress is called upon to pay to the last farthing. I need not enlarge upon the point, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will feel disposed, in the interests of equity, to concede to women the same concession that has been for so long granted to men.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I think I remember the hon. Gentleman moving a similar Clause about this time last year, and the Clause was then rejected. In the first place, I do not think this Clause is very happily worded—even if we could accept it, which we cannot—when he imports the words "does not exceed five hundred pounds." The introduction of the income limit would lead to all kinds of objections. As I read the Clause, the hon. Gentleman proposes to extend the housekeeper allowance, which is at present confined to widows and widowers, to unmarried persons with incomes not exceeding £500, and to make it available to the bachelor or spinster who may choose to maintain a housekeeper or employ a person for the purpose of looking after them. I think that is what is in my hon. Friend's mind. I want to put it in a most moderate way that the word "housekeeper" might lend itself to an unpleasant interpretation. I believe my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to an hon. Member for one of the divisions of Leicester, pointed out that he was unable to estimate the cost, but that it would certainly involve the Exchequer in a considerable amount. For these reasons, I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Clause, which we are unable to accept.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am sorry the Financial Secretary brought in the question of possible immorality.

Mr. SAMUEL: I did not say so.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I understood that this was hinted at by the hon. Gentleman. There will always be these dangers as long as human nature is imperfect, but why should you create hardships in this case? There is one particular case to which reference has not been made, and which I would like to mention. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would reconsider the matter for this reason between now and the Report stage. It is the case of the Roman Catholic priest who, because of his vow of celibacy, has to employ a housekeeper to look after his house, and in these days suffers, with the rest of us who have fixed incomes, from the rise in the cost of living and the higher expenses of taxation. I think that particular case is a reasonable one, and it is one of the cases that I know my hon. Friend had in mind.

Mr. SAMUEL: Of course, I will consider anything that is put before us during this discussion, and I think I can do so without pledging myself or giving any undertaking. I am not very learned in these matters, but I am rather of opinion that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has mis-stated the facts. I am under the impression that the Roman Catholic priest has no income.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman willing to consider the case of the person who maintains out of her income a sister or other relative or friend who performs domestic duties in her own home? Is the hon. Gentleman willing to consider that point between now and the Report stage? I am rather afraid, in view of the reply of the hon. Gentleman, that unless he can guarantee that he is going to take such cases into consideration between now and Report, we shall have to carry this Motion to a Division.

Mr. PALING: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman used the argument that he did. There are other ways and means of dealing with the point he mentioned. My mind goes back to several cases I have raised as a Member of this House with the Pension authorities under the War scheme. There are ways and means of dealing with that. I do not say that it is a good or a bad way, but it is not a very serious objection, and, that being
disposed of, the ease of hardship remains. I understand the hon. Gentleman is prepared to give his serious consideration to this new Clause. I remember another pledge a week or two back about the lighters, and that came to nothing. I am a little suspicious that this pledge will meet with the same result.

Mr. SAMUEL: There is no pledge. The hon. Member must not misinterpret

what I have said. I gave no undertaking. I said that I will give careful attention to anything that has been put forward in the Debate, but I can give no undertaking or alter what I have said.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 229.

Division No. 228.]
AYES.
[4.15 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardle, George D.
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayday, Arthur
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Ammon, Charles George
Hayes, John Henry
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hirst, G. H.
Scrymgeour, E.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scurr, John


Barnes, A.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Sexton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bondfield, Margaret
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shinwell, E.


Briant, Frank
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bromfield, William
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smillie, Robert


Bromley, J.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snell, Harry


Cape, Thomas
Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Stamford, T. W.


Cluse, W. S
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon, Joseph M.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Connolly, M.
Lawrence, Susan
Strauss, E. A.


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Sutton, J. E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lindley, F. W.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Dalton, Hugh
Livingstone, A. M.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lowth, T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Day, Harry
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Dennison, R.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Tomlinson, R. P.


Dunnico, H.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Varley, Frank B.


Edge, Sir William
Malone, C. L' Estrange (N'thampton)
Viant, S. P.


Fanby, T. D.
March, S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gardner, J. P.
Maxtor, James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gibbins, Joseph
Montague, Frederick
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gillet, George M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Whiteley, W.


Gosling, Harry
Mosley, Oswald
Wiggins, William Martin


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent)
Murnin, H.
Williams, C. P. Denbigh, Wrexham


Greenall, T.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Windsor, Walter


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wright, W.


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Riley, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ritson, J.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Blundell, F. N.
Bullock, Captain M.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Boothby, R. J. G.
Burman, J. B.


Albery, Irving James
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Burton, Colonel H. W.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward


Apsley, Lord
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Campbell, E. T.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Brass, Captain W.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Briggs, J. Harold
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Briscoe, Richard George
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Chapman, Sir S.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Christie, J. A.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Churchill, Rt. Hon Winston Spencer


Bethel, A.
Buchan, John
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Betterton, Henry B.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hurd, Percy A.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)


Couper, J. B.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Iveagh, Countess of
Ropner, Major L.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn., N.)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Jephcott, A. R.
Rye, F. G.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Salmon, Major I.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Dalkeith. Earl of
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sandon, Lord


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lamb, J. O.
Savery, S. S.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Shepperson, E. W.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Skelton. A. N.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dine, C.)


Drewe, C.
Loder, J. de V.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Duckworth, John
Long, Major Eric
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Looker, Herbert William
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lougher, Lewis
Sprot, Sir Alexander


England, Colonel A.
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Falie, Sir Bertram G.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Macdonald. R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Fielden, E. B.
McLean, Major A.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Finburgh, S.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Templeton, W. P.


Forrest, W.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Fraser, Captain Ian
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Tinne, J. A.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Gates, Percy
Malone, Major P. B.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Grant, Sir J. A.
Margesson, Captain D.
Waddington, R.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Meyer, Sir Frank
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Grotrian, H. Brent
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hacking, Douglas H.
Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Hall, Lieut. Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. R. C. (Ayr)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Hammersley, S. S.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Hanbury, C.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wells, S. R.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Nuttall, Ellis
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hartington, Marquess of
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Haslam, Henry C.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Withers, John James


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Plicher, G.
Womersley, W. J.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Preston, William
Wragg, Herbert


Holt, Captain H. P.
Price, Major C. W. M.



Hopkins, J. W. W.
Radford, E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Ramsden, E.
Major Sir William Cope and Mr.


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Remer, J. R.
 Penny.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney. N.)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Rate of Entertainments Duty.)

As from the fifth day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, entertainments duty within the meaning of the Finance (New Duties) Act, 1926, shall he charged at the rate set out in the Fourth Schedule to this Act.—[Mr. Day.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. DAY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I am afraid that, while we shall have the sympathy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to this proposed new Clause, we shall not have his support.
[Interruption.] I understand from my hon. Friends on this side that the right hon. Gentleman is in a very generous mood and may go so far as to accept the new Schedule that we suggest. I know that in the past he has said that he is in favour of the abolition of this tax, which is an unjust tax principally because it is a tax on turnover. Had it not been for the remission which was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, I have no doubt that many music halls and theatres would have had
to close long since. This tax is a tax on the purse and pockets of the public, and is paid, not only by the public, but by the proprietors and managers of theatres and cinemas in this country. I see by the approval that is expressed by the hon. Member for Kingston-on-Thames (Mr. Penny) that, although he may not support us in the Lobby, he at least agrees with us in principle. I know that many hon. Gentlemen on the Government benches agree that the tax should be entirely abolished, because on several occasions in the Committee rooms upstairs—[Interruption]—I should think that well over 50 per cent. of the hon. Gentlemen who support the Chancellor of the Exchequer have already stated, not only to their constituents but in the Committee rooms upstairs when meetings have been held in previous years, that they were in favour of the abolition of this tax.
The duty has operated extremely harshly on owners and managers in the entertainment industry in this country. Their expenses all round have been more than doubled, while they have not been able to increase the prices charged for admission. They have had to contend with enormous opposition, and the anomalies which have worked against them have been such that I think the time has come when the entertainment industry should at least have fair treatment. We can see in the West End of London at the present time many cabarets where first-class music hall and theatrical artists appear, and where no Entertainments Duty is charged, but, when those same artists appear in a music hall or theatre, the public have to pay Entertainments Duty on the price of admission. That is an anomaly which should be removed, and the only possible way to remove it is to do away with the Entertainments Duty altogether. We are not going quite so far as that to-day, but we ask the Chancellor to accept the Schedule that we propose. This duty, when it was introduced, was introduced solely as a Wartime measure, and it was announced by the right hon. Gentleman who introduced it that, as soon as the War was over, the tax would be remitted or abolished. I suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, I am sorry to say, has left his place, should support the Schedule that we are proposing. I see that the hon. Member for Forth Portsmouth (Sir B. Folle)
is laughing. I wonder whether he will go back to his constituency and laugh at the working men and women who have to pay the tax.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: I was laugh ing at the hon. Member's idea of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. DAY: I do not know why the hon. and gallant Gentleman should laugh at my idea, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, in his speeches before he occupied his present position, stated that he was not in favour of the tax, and that at the earliest opportunity he would do his best to see that it was abolished. That was the pledge that he gave, and it is a pledge that has been given also by many hundreds of Members of the House of Commons, who, however, have not the pluck or the moral courage to go into the Lobby and support it. I sincerely hope that some of the hon. Gentlemen who have given this pledge will now, many years after the introduction of the tax, have the courage to support the speeches that they have made in their constituencies.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I think that the hon. Gentleman who has moved this Clause also moved it in 1926 and 1927, and, therefore, he knows the arguments which wore used against it then. I am afraid that we must advance the same arguments against it to-day. As I read the Schedule that is proposed in conjunction with this Clause, it seems that the hon. Member desires to reduce the Entertainments Duty on admission payments up to 5s. 6d. This would cost the Exchequer not less than £1,000,000 in the year 1928–29, and probably £1,350,000 in a full year. Of that amount, £800,000 would represent relief in respect of admission payments up to 1s. 3d., and these small admission charges have already benefited to the extent of £4,000,000 yearly by the remissions made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) in 1924. I also find a statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in resisting the same proposal in 1926–27. To paraphrase what he said, he expressed dislike of the duty in principle, and indicated that any relief that he would propose if and when the money was available would be in the direction of extending the remissions made by the
right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley in 1924 to all charges for admission, in order to cover the more highly priced seats in theatres. I may also draw the hon. Member's attention to the Minority Report of the Colwyn Committee, which is the best answer I can give him. This is what they say:
We recommend, therefore, that subject to the needs of fresh expenditure, any future surplus of revenue should be devoted to the abolition primarily of the food duties, and thereafter of the duties upon entertainments and upon artificial silk.
I regret that I am unable to accept the Clause.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: No one on this side of the Committee would seek to dispute the spirit of that passage from the Colwyn Committee's Report which the hon. Gentleman has quoted, because, quite clearly, if remissions of taxation were to be given, they should be given first of all on foodstuffs and kindred commodities, and then on other articles which might be ranked either among the necessaries or the conventional necessaries of life. The object of this Clause is to draw attention to a certain feature of the Entertainments Duty, and also to plead that, even in existing conditions at the Exchequer, there is a case for further remission of the duty charged on the cheaper classes of seats. In the midst of this industrial and social stress a certain amount of entertainment is necessary and desirable, and there cannot be the least doubt that this charge falls very unequally, and even heavily, upon very poor sections of the community. I do not press it beyond that point to-day, but I pass immediately to another, and I think an even more important consideration. This is a tax on turnover, and if we are to embark upon turnover taxes, more particularly in the realm of entertainment, we should try to see that they bear some relationship to one another. I will take for a moment, if it is not irrelevant and an indiscretion, the Betting Duty by way of comparison. I suppose many Members would describe that as a tax upon a form of entertainment, though many others would not so regard it. That duty is between 2½ per cent. and 3 per cent. on the turnover, but when we pass to this other form of entertainment, the duty is between 17 per cent. and 20 per
cent. If the Entertainments Duty is to settle down to a more or less permanent proposition, it is plain that an inequality and an unfairness of that kind must be remitted at the earliest possible moment and, accordingly, though the Government will no doubt reject this Clause, I hope they will say whether they propose to make an inquiry into that very great difference in the incidence of what is a turnover tax applied to different classes of entertainment.

Mr. MACLEAN: I fancy the Financial Secretary must be hard put to it for an argument against the remission of this duty when he bases his refusal to accept the Clause on the Report of the Colwyn Committee. Will he explain why he shelters himself behind such a Report when he has given remission of taxation to the agricultural interest amounting to roughly £5,000,000, or £1,500,000 more than it would require to adopt this Clause? That, surely, is something he did not take into consideration when he framed the argument he has placed before us. I should imagine it would be more to the interest of the people, particularly in large cities, to have a remission of this tax. The hon. Gentleman also said the Chancellor of the Exchequer was opposed to the tax on principle. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is not here, because last year, speaking against a similar proposal, he said he disliked the duty and shared the prejudices of hon. Members against it. He could not then see his way to accept the Amendment, which would have cost him £3,500,000. That was a year ago. This year the Chancellor had a surplus to dispose of. He has disposed of it, and he has also brought in proposals for levying fresh duties upon the community in order to provide some £28,000,000 or £30,000,000 for specific purposes. Those purposes include subsidising industries that are in a particularly good way. If he is doing that, surely he can afford to accept this Clause. I have an Amendment later on. I am not quite certain whether you, Sir, will regard this discussion as including the whole of the arguments for and against a remission of the duty.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think time will permit of two discussions on the question of the Entertain
ments Duty. The hon. Member had better say now what he has to say.

Mr. MACLEAN: I was under that impression and I was taking time by the forelock. The Financial Secretary has simply repeated what the Chancellor himself said last year. No fresh reasons have been adduced why this remission cannot be given. The people are crying out for it. The people who own picture houses are calling out for it. The only party, I should imagine, that is not really insisting upon it is the section representing the West-end theatres of London, where the prices of seats are beyond those that this Clause proposes to touch. They are keen enough on the abolition of the tax, but they are not so keen on this Clause, because it conveys nothing to them in the way of remission of duty. If the Chan-

cellor of the Exchequer has so much money this year that he can throw it about for the benefit of firms that are making very large profits and dispensing bonus shares, surely he could have gone into the matter a little more scientifically and used part of the money at his disposal to abolish this duty. I hope the hon. Gentleman will convey our views to his Chief, and acquaint him that the opposition to the tax is as virile and persistent as it was 12 months ago and if he is not prepared to accept this Clause I hope he will himself bring forward a proposal on Report, to give some remission of duty to the entertainments industry.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 138; Noes, 227.

Division No. 229.]
AYES.
[4.43 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardie, George D.
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayday, Arthur
Runciman, Rt. Han. Walter


Amman, Charles George
Hayes, John Henry
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bllston)
Hirst, G. H.
Scrymgeour, E.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scurr, John


Barnes, A.
Hollins, A.
Sexton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Bondfield, Margaret
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Briant, Frank
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shinwell, E.


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bromfield, William
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Calthness)


Bromley, J.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sitch, Charles H.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Buchanan, G.
Junes, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smillie, Robert


Cape, Thomas
Jones, T. I. Hardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhiths)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Snell, Harry


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Connolly, M.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stamford, T. W.


Cove, W. G.
Lawrence, Susan
Stephen, Campbell


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lindley, F. W.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Dalton, Hugh
Livingstone, A. M.
Strauss, E. A.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lowth, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Day, Harry
Lunn, William
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Dennison, R.
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon, J. R. (Aberavon)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Duckworth, John
MacLaren, Andrew
Thurtle, Ernest


Dunnlco, H.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Tinker, John Joseph


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Fenby, T. D.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Varley, Frank B.


Forrest, W.
March, S.
Viant, S. P.


Gardner, J. P.
Maxton, James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gibbins, Joseph
Montague, Frederick
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gillett, George M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gosling, Harry
Mosley, Oswald
Whiteley, W.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Murnin, H.
Wiggins, William Martin


Greenall, T.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Palin, John Henry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton
Riley, Ben



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Mr. Paling and Mr. Charles Edwards.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ganzoni, Sir John
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Albery, Irving James
Gates, Percy
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Nuttall, Ellis


Apsley, Lord
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Pennefather, Sir John


Aitbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Penny, Frederick George


Astor, Maj. Hn, John J. (Kent, Dover)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hacking, Douglas H.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hail, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Pilcher, G.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Hammersley, S. S.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hanbury, C.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Bennett, A. J.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Bethel, A.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Preston, William


Betterton, Henry B.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Hartington, Marquess of
Radford, E. A.


Blundell, F. N.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Ramsden, E.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Haslam, Henry C.
Remer, J. R.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Brass, Captain W.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Briggs, J. Harold
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ropner, Major L.


Briscoe, Richard George
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Salmon, Major I.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Buchan, John
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sandon, Lord


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Bullock, Captain M.
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Savery, S. S.


Burman, J. B.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Shepperson, E. W.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Skelton, A. N.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hume, Sir G. H.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hurd, Percy A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Campbell, E. T.
Iliffe. Sir Edward M.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Iveagh, Countess of
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon Cuthbert
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Chapman, Sir S.
Jephcott, A. R.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Christie, J. A.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Clarry, Reginald George
Knox, Sir Alfred
Templeton, W. P.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lamb, J. O.
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Tinne, J. A.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Loder, J. de V.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cooper, A. Duff
Long, Major Eric
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Couper, J. B.
Looker, Herbert William
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lougher, Lewis
Waddington, R.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Lowe, Mr Francis William
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lumley, L. R.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
McLean, Major A.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macmillan, Captain H.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Wells, S. R.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Malone, Major P. B.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Drewe, C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Margesson, Captain D.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Withers, John James


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Meyer, Sir Frank
Womersley, W. J.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kigsley


Faile, Sir Bertram G.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wragg, Herbert


Fielden, E. B.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)



Finburgh, S.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fraser, Captain Ian
Nelson, Sir Frank
Major Sir William Cope and Captain


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
 Bowyer.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Reduction of Liquor Licence Duties.)

The duties chargeable on the following excise liquor licences, that is to say, retailers' on-licences for spirits, beer, or wine and retailers' off-licences for spirits, beer, or wine, shall be reduced by twenty-five per cent.—[Mr. Looker.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. LOOKER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I move this in the absence of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Sir A. Holbrook). The object of the Clause is to make certain reductions in the duties chargeable on retailers' on-licences and retailers' off-licences. The principle that the duties on such licences should bear some relation to the hours during which liquor is permitted to be sold is one which has always been recognised, and consistently recognised, by the Legislature, particularly by this House. In 1872, a rebate of one-seventh was granted in respect of houses which were open only six days in the week, as compared with those which were open seven days, including Sunday. In 1874, a similar rebate was granted in recognition of the fact that earlier closing hours were enforced for certain establishments. In the earlier days of the War, a similar rebate was given proportionate to the hours which were lost owing to certain war Measures; and the principle finally received legislative sanction in the Finance Act, 1917.
I think hon. Members will recognise the justice of this principle, which, indeed, is obvious. The licensee must get his living and recoup himself from the moneys paid him for the liquors which he sells, and the longer he is able to keep his shop open the more chance he has of getting his living and recouping himself, while of course the shorter the hours the more he is out of pocket. What is the present position? The present duties were imposed in 1910 when the permitted hours were 17½ to 19½. They are now eight to nine, but the duties are the same; and I would with great respect submit to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that it is indefensible to ask retailers to pay the same duty for the privilege of trading for nine hours as they paid for the privilege of trading
for 19 hours. That is a principle which, if it were left to the House, I do not think for a moment the House would endorse.
Those grounds alone, are, I think, sufficient to establish my claim, but there are others in addition which reinforce it. The fact is that on the prices prevailing to-day there is a smaller percentage of profit made on the turnover than was made before, which makes it all the more difficult for these licensees to get a living, and at the same time to pay the very heavy duties which are demanded. In addition, the disproportion between the purchasing power of the public and the high prices rendered inevitable by this duty very much emphasises that position, and it also emphasises the injustice of these duties remaining at their present rate. In his Budget Speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself admitted that beer was down by £5,000,000, and that can only mean that these licensees were still being prejudiced, as regards their sales of liquor, by the fact that the public is not able to consume the amount which it used to consume previously; and that, again, emphasises the justice of this claim for reduction. When a deputation waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer a short time ago on this very subject, he acknowledged the justice of this claim, and informed them that if he had a surplus he would give the matter his earnest consideration. Now he has his surplus, and we are asking that we should now have our consideration, and I hope that the result of the consideration will be that he will be able to accept this Clause.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I do not take the slightest exception to the manner in which the hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Looker) has put forward his argument, and, though I am not able altogether to meet him, nevertheless I wish to make it quite clear that I am not at variance with him upon the general issue which he has put forward, namely, that the effective value of a licence has been greatly affected by the diminution which has been made in the hours during which licensed premises may remain open. I received a deputation upon this subject a year ago, and after very carefully examining the whole question, I reached the conclusion that undoubtedly a case
of some injustice had been made out. I have not found it possible to deal with this matter in the present Finance Bill. When last year the subject of the possibility of making some reduction in these duties was raised, the Debate became involved with what was called the small bottle, and I pointed out that it would be impossible to deal with the small bottle issue, an issue which affected off-licence holders, unless and until an attempt were made to adjust the burden which was put on on-licence holders; but I said that, if ever it were found that the general finances of the country would justify a mitigation of the burden on on-licence holders, that would be the time to deal with the question of the small bottle.
I am not in a position to do that this year; I think it would be better to await a greater assurance of a surplus before dealing with the question, but I will say now that I hope, and indeed confidently hope, that it will be possible, unless some very unfavourable turn takes place, to make some mitigation of the on-licence duty next year; and, if that should be the position, that will be the time, and then would arise the necessity, for dealing at the same time with the question of the small bottle, which was so strongly pressed upon us by representatives of the Labour party and, indeed, by hon. Members in all parts of the House. The Amendment which was moved last year, which would have had the effect of authorising the sale by off-licence holders of small bottles, was supported on the Division I think by the great majority of the Labour party.

Mr. SNOWDEN: They only voted against the Government.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman says that they only voted against the Government. Did they only vote against the Government without any consideration of the merits of the question? Are they not to be held responsible in their constituencies for the topics upon which they vote in this House, and for the Measures which, if they had their way, they would carry into law? I have never heard of such a thing. I surmise that the right hon. Gentleman would be indignant if it were suggested that the Members of the party to which he belongs
gave votes in this House caring nothing for the merits of the matter upon which they voted, but merely because they thought that there was some division in the ranks of the Government on the subject and that they might by going into the Lobby embarrass the Administration. I am, at any rate, bound to take note of expressions of opinion given by Members of any party in this House, and, on studying the Division List, I came to the conclusion that there was support from all parts of the House for the treatment of this off-licence question, but most strongly from the Socialist party. I was very much impressed by that, and by the divergence between their views and the view taken by some of the more straight-laced Members of the Liberal party. Feeling bound to give satisfaction whenever I can, I have addressed myself to the study of this question, and I am of opinion that there is a case for the relief of the off-licence holder. I will not burden the Committee with the details of it now, but I am quite clear on this, that it would not be right to make that concession to the off-licence holder unless it was in a Budget which found it possible to make some mitigation of the burdens which now rest on the on-licence holder. I must be guided entirely by what happens to the finances of the country. In this year we have found it necessary to impose additional taxation, no doubt for the purpose of making greater remissions, but the taxation is here and the remissions are still on the road, as has been frequently pointed out, and I have not felt that this was an appropriate time for making other remissions. But it may be that next year—I will not attempt to prophesy—our position will be more satisfactory, and that we shall have some mitigations to bestow without the need of any countervailing burdens. I do not say that it will be so, but it may be so, and if it were so, I should be very glad to deal with the vexed question of the small bottle, in which the Socialist party takes such great interest, and at the same time make a mitigation of the burdens resting on the on-licence holder.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am sure the Committee enjoyed the simulated indignation of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the observation that I made. Are Members of Parliament, asks the right hon. Gentle
man, not prepared to go down to their constituencies and defend the votes they give? The right hon. Gentleman is a very old Parliamentary hand, and he knows quite well what the game is. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should look through the Division record of Members of his own party on the Budget Divisions when we were in office, and then look at the votes of the same hon. Members in the succeeding Session when he himself was in office, and he will find in that record Tory Members voting for the reduction of the Sugar Duty and the Tea Duty and remissions of Income Tax, when we were in office, and then the next year going into the Lobby, after speeches of the right hon. Gentleman in which he had opposed these Amendments, to cancel their votes of the previous year. That is simply the political game, and, as I say, nobody is more familiar with it than is the right hon. Gentleman.
I want to say a word about the rather unusual speech of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman has established precedents during his tenure of office. It used to be the accepted and universally observed rule that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made no intimation as to what he intended to do in the way of remissions of duties until he actually proposed them, but for two or three months before the Budget of this year the right hon. Gentleman had been stating publicly, in public meetings and to deputations, what he intended to do; and, as a matter of fact, there was not a single surprise either for the House of Commons or for the country, when he opened his Budget about two months ago. It is nearly 12 months before the right hon. Gentleman is going to introduce his next Budget, and he has already told us practically what he intends to do. If he has the means, he intends to revise these liquor licences. I am not at all surprised to hear that the right hon. Gentleman, if he has a surplus; is going to come once more to the help of the brewers. The only remission of indirect taxation made by Tory Chancellors during the last five years has been in relief of the brewers, When the present Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1923, he reduced the Beer Duty by about £20,000,000, and we have the right hon.
Gentleman saying this afternoon that the first call upon any opportunity that he may have of remitting taxation next year will go to the liquor interests once more. I suppose he thinks that the liquor interests are still the backbone of the support of the Tory party, and it is a question of carrying out the dictum of a former Tory Minister that the business of a Tory Government is to look after the interests of its own friends and supporters when it is in office and to take care that they are safeguarded in the event of their being out of office.
Just one word on the merits of this proposed new Clause. I submit that there is no case at all for the Clause. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was some case for the lowering of the duty owing to the falling off in sales.

Mr. CHURCHILL: And the restriction of hours.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The hours have been restricted with very great social advantage to the country. There has been, I am very glad to say, a very considerable reduction in the consumption of liquor as compared with pre-War times, but—and this is the point—it is not a question of whether the public-house hours are less long than they were some years ago; the question, when we are going to consider whether or not these Excise Duties are onerous is this: Are the profits of the liquor trade less than they were? Has the reduction of hours curtailed the profits of the liquor trade?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman ought to deal with brewers and publicans separately.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I was going to link up the two in a moment. It is very difficult to make a distinction between the brewers and the publicans. The point I was making was this. Has the reduction of the hours of sale resulted in a loss of profit to the liquor trade? Most of the houses are tied. They are owned by the brewers, and if the Licence Duties are, high, then the rent is so much less. As a matter of fact, the incidence of these Excise Duties falls upon the owners of the public houses, namely, the brewers. What is the position of the brewers? I gave some figures a week or two ago, when we were discussing the Second Reading of the
Finance Bill, showing that since 1914 the profits of the brewing trade have risen by over 100 per cent., from about £10,000,000 a year to over £20,000,000 a year. [An HON. MEMBER: "£24,000,000!"] But that is not the whole story. The £24,000,000 profit last year was made by a turnover which was only about one-half the turnover of 1914, and, therefore, their profits have in a sense risen by 200 per cent.; and this is the depressed industry which is making such a strong appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer! He is giving them that relief of local rates to which constant reference has been made, but he is not satisfied with that. He is not satisfied either with the remission of the Beer Duty which was made five years ago, the effect of which is reflected in the continuously rising profits of the brewing industry since that time. He is not content with these two gifts to the brewers, but now he announces that if he is in a position next year to make a further remission of taxation, the people who will have the first claim upon his consideration will be the liquor trade of the country.

Sir FRANK MEYER: If I had the time now and cared to do so, I could show that the right hon. Gentleman is not quite right in saying that the incidence of these Licence Duties falls almost entirely upon the brewers who are owners of these houses and not on the publicans; and if it comes next year to a proposition from the Government to reduce these licences and it comes to be discussed as a Measure which may have to be divided upon, I hope that either I or some other hon. Member will be able to put forward facts to prove conclusively that that is so. On this occasion, in view of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his announcement that he cannot accept this Clause this year, but that he may see his way possibly to make the concession next year, I think it would be inappropriate to delay the Committee with a long statement and figures now. I rise, therefore, merely to say that I am in strong sympathy with the new Clause that has been moved, but I do not think it would be appropriate to give any further reasons, after the right hon. Gentleman has himself admitted that there is much justice behind this
claim. I rise only to explain that the reason why I put down a subsequent new Clause on the Order Paper dealing with the small bottle—which was on the Order Paper last year and was then rejected—was that if the Clause now before the Committee had been conceded by the right hon. Gentleman, it would be necessary, in justice and in order to carry out the right hon. Gentleman's pledges, that the Clause giving a half-bottle to off-licence holders should also be conceded. In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to make the concession to the on-licence holder, I do not propose this year, having tested the feeling of the House last year, to move my new Clause. The feeling of the House was tested, and I now know, and the Committee knows, what are the views on this question of the majority of the hon. Members above the Gangway. In view of the position as it stands to-day, I think it would be wasting time to move the same thing again, and, therefore, although I support the present Clause and look forward to some concession next year, I do not propose to move my own.

Mr. LOOKER: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I was interested in the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in his very kindly consideration for the trade whose cause has been presented by the hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Looker). It was further interesting to find his predecessor in office, the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), making a very keen criticism of the deliverance that has come from the Treasury Bench. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked us not to associate the brewers with the retail dealers. I am quite confident that the retail dealers themselves would put in a very strong plea for being taken into consideration with the brewers, because I have a fairly good understanding, from information received, that these same retail dealers get very scanty treatment from those who have the control over them and over their licences. I have had some representations made to me in the days gone past as to the very severe and hard
fashion in which these retail dealers are dealt with by their masters in the brewing business, and it is very unfortunate too, from the standpoint of justice, that so much of the denunciation of the trade by those who are particularly identified with that denunciation is directed only to the retail dealers.
I submit that in this connection with which we are dealing to-day the retail dealer is only, as it were, the tax gatherer; he is collecting for the public Treasury. I, for myself, dissent entirely from the Government or any Government or political party agreeing with the imposition of taxation upon such a basis, and I feel strongly, from the point of view of justice, that these men, in more than one particular aspect, are dealt with most unfairly. We are not dealing with this particular question to-day. We are being asked to consider the question as to how they are losing their livelihood.
I would ask the hon. Member who put forward that argument with apparent sincerity: Does he really think that those engaged in that business can succeed in it without taking away the living of other people? As a matter of fact, if it were not for the circumscribed policy of the Government, and if all parties supported the abolition of licences, you would have free competition. You would have that which hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side, and hon. Gentlemen on this side for that matter, put forward, namely, the liberty of the subject. I ask: Why should not any of us have the liberty to enter into this business as a legitimate business? We have not the liberty to do so. The Government are going to assist a monopoly. The brewers get on remarkably well. They have particular advantages compared with their fellows who are engaged in other businesses. They are given special facilities for engaging in this business. If it were not for this, we should have free competition. As far as the retail business is concerned, the present industrial conditions are so depressed that things will be more difficult for the retail dealer.
The former Chancellor of the Exchequer has brought out the strength of the case. Here we have the brewers amassing these millions while our legitimate industries are paralysed. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has proposed in another Measure that the
particular businesses securing these millions are going to have relief of taxation, and he is being backed by the hon. Gentleman, who has moved this Clause apparently in sympathy with the retail trader, who is not going to get the benefit of this relief of taxation. This proves once again, not only the anomaly of the present state of affairs, but the appalling scandal of the whole business. Really a tragedy lies behind the whole concern. We are only dealing with the financial aspect as far as taxation is concerned. The real question is whether or not it would be advisable to stop getting taxation from this business and to throw our whole strength into an attempt to cut out this thing. We could get all the taxation that is needed by cutting out this particular taxation entirely. By so doing, we should be giving a lift to our industries in a way which could not be achieved under the present scheme which has been put forward by the Government. It is the giving of assistance to a concern which is busy cheating the men, women and children of their daily bread. I do not say that the heart of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is with him in what he is doing, but his political conscience is with him. He, as well as every thinking Member in this House, knows as far as the moral idea is concerned, that nothing appeals more directly to the inner conscience of a man, however clever he may be, than the impulse to follow the path of rectitude. To cut out this business entirely would prove to be one of the biggest lifts that our country could receive in every phase of its life and from every point of view.

Mr. GATES: I did not want to intrude on the time of the Committee, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), not for the first time, has made what I venture to think the Committee will agree are misstatements regarding the trade of the brewers. I had the fortune, by inheritance, to become possessed of a certain share in a brewery, and having some experience of the management of such a business, I would like, if the Committee will bear with me, to answer one or two of the points made by the right hon. Gentleman. He, first of all, referred to the policy adopted by the Conservative party in 1923 when they reduced the price
of beer to the consumer by 1d. a pint. He called that the handing over of £20,000,000 to the brewers. But the Committee will recollect that that was nothing of the sort. The Government found £20,000,000 to enable the price of beer to be reduced, and the brewers put their hands into their own pockets for another £5,000,000. To reduce the price of beer by 1d. a pint at that time cost £25,000,000. The Government found £20,000,000 and the brewers £5,000,000.
Naturally, the Government were under the impression when they made that bargain that the consumption of beer would be increased. The consumption has slightly increased, not so much as the Government of the day then thought, but it has increased, as witness the larger sums which the Excise now levy for duty. In the last year they obtained from the trade the sum of £79,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman, I am quite sure inadvertently, stated to the Committee a short time ago that the brewers had not kept the compact which they made with the Government of the day. That compact was that in addition to finding the £5,000,000 they would at least maintain the gravity of the beer. The right hon. Gentleman could easily have found out if he had examined the records of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that not only has the gravity of the beer been maintained as it was in 1923, but it has year by year gone up. Instead of being 10.42, it is now over 10.43, and as every degree of gravity costs the brewer 1s. 6d., the Committee will see that the arrangements made by them in 1923 have cost them a very considerable sum of money. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman, with his sense of fairness, when he comes to examine the statements that I have made, as he can easily do for himself, will absolve the brewers from any charge of not playing fair in the arrangements which they made.
He has also stated that these licence duties would be paid by the brewers. That, again, is not so. The licence duties are in the main paid by the tenant, with, I admit, a certain assistance from the brewers. There is a case pending now before the House of Lords in which the retail trade is seeking to make the brewers pay the whole
of these increased licence duties. The judgment of the Court below and of the Court of Appeal has been that these increased licence duties were to be paid by the new tenants of licensed houses. That, I think, if I may say so, disposes of yet another point made by the right hon. Gentleman. As I said, I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee, but I did feel that it was due to the trade, with which I am proud to be connected, that I should call attention to the mis-statements of the right hon. Gentleman. I am very much obliged to the Committee for giving me an opportunity of making an explanation.

Mr. J. JONES: My hon. and philanthropic Friend who has just addressed the Committee tried to make us believe that the brewers are public benefactors. Nobody will accuse me of any prejudice in this matter. The one thing I like better than a glass of beer is a pint, and in that respect I am not going to claim to be a pussyfooter or an advocate of things which ought not to be. I would like to point out to the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed us that the brewers are not living on their losses, but that they are doing very well out of the conditions that have lately been created through circumstances which neither we nor they can control. Their profits are greater to-day than ever they have been in modern times. The tenant who in the future will have to face the responsibility, if the High Court decide against him, as probably they have done, the new tenant who comes in, is going to be fleeced. He is going to be fleeced twice. I have heard something about the brewer and distiller and gravity. The gravity of it all is the cheek of it all. The people who are selling the commodity are not in business for the good of customers but for the good of their own banking account. Why not be honest about it, the same as everybody else? If a man cannot make a house pay, he has to go through the mill. A house becomes redundant, and what is the consequence? Compensation. Compensation for whom? 75 per cent. of it for the brewer, and the other man is lucky if he gets anything to go out with, although he may have put his life's savings down in order to get into it. The hon. Gentleman knows that is true. He knows that the brewer always has
the main hold upon the whole situation as far as the liquor trade is concerned.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I ask the hon. Member to come to the point at which he will tell us whether these arguments are in favour of the reduction of the duty or the increase of it.

Mr. JONES: The argument is in favour of the customer having some look in.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This Clause does not deal with whether the customers have a look in.

Mr. JONES: No, he has to look out. I am in favour of any proposal that will give the ordinary public an advantage The consumers, after all, ought to be considered in these matters. We have heard to-night of the brewer and the distiller and the publican. We have not heard a word about the man who drinks a glass of beer or a glass of whisky. He does not get a look in at all. I am suggesting that this relief is going to be given to the brewer. It will be a splendid election cry. Every brewer will give his assistance and every tied-house will be a committee room for the Tory party, and the old proposition will go round, "Save the working man's glass of beer." As a matter of fact, they want to drown him in beer at the next election if it means saving their own position. I am one who drinks a glass of beer. [Interruption.] Yes, and I am not ashamed of it. This will continue as long as I have the means to pay for it, and when I ask some of my friends to buy me one it will be time for them to shout about it. We want to see the time come when the workers will have some control over this matter. We do not desire to see the brewers enriched at the expense of the people, but to see the whole of the country controlling the industry, which ought never to be taken out of the hands of the people.

Mr. PALING: I want to put a question to the Financial Secretary, in view of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not in his place. During the discussion on the last new Clause, the Financial Secretary was very careful to point out that he could not accept the new Clause, and as an argument he quoted from the Colwyn Committee, who recommended that if there was any surplus in any Budget that surplus ought
to be used, first, in taking off the Food Duties. The Financial Secretary appealed to us, I suppose, from the point of view that we consider that the taking off of the Food Duties is of first importance, and he is right in that assumption; but when we come to the present new Clause, the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes a statement that next year, should there be any surplus, he will take into consideration the reduction of the Licence Duties. Is that to have precedence over the reduction of the Food Duties? As the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now in his place, I should like to ask him whether it is his intention next year, if he has a surplus in the Budget, to give the reduction of Licence Duties precedence over everything else, even including the Food Duties?

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: I rise with a view to obtaining an explanation in regard to this new Clause, not only from Members of the Conservative party but from Members of the Liberal party. Yesterday, we had an interesting instance of the Liberal party putting in a special plea for hop gardens, and now we have one Liberal Member, the hon. Member for North Southwark (Mr. Strauss) in favour of the licence holders being relieved of their burdens. We have had to listen frequently, in this House and out of it, to the Liberal complaints about our unsatisfactory attitude upon the general question of drink, and now I see the name of the hon. Member for North Southwark backing this new Clause. In these circumstances we have some right to claim an explanation from the hon. Member of the attitude which he has taken in backing this new Clause, or to ask that he should retrace the step that he has taken. Although we have discussed the matter at some length, I trust that we shall receive some explanation from the hon. Member.

Mr. STRAUSS: The reason why my name appears in support of this new Clause is that I feel that the Licence Duties are far too high, in view of the fact that houses that used to be open for 17 or 19 hours are now only open for eight or nine hours. On the ground of mere justice the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to take that fact into consideration, and I was glad to hear that he will deal with this point in a friendly and sympathetic way as soon as the
finances of the country permit. I was under the impression that taxation was imposed for the purpose of revenue and for no other purpose, but when we hear that owing to high taxation the Chancellor of the Exchequer is £5,000,000 worse off with regard to Beer Duties, it clearly proves that it is undesirable to impose too high a tax on an article which the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) appreciates so much. It means that the State suffers and the consumer suffers by our making the taxation far too high, and the revenue is reduced. There are other reasons why the revenue has fallen, in the case of beer. The hon. Member for Silvertown said that the brewers were making enormous profits. That is a matter in his own hands. There are many people who produce large quantities of home-brewed beer. All that the hon. Member has to do is to go to a grocer and buy a packet of malt and hops and he will be able to produce 2½ gallons of beer for the price of two pints of beer. I would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this home-brewed beer is free of taxation.
The other day, the Prime Minister was very sympathetic in regard to the cider industry. The constituency which the Prime Minister represents produces a large quantity of apples. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer represented a hop-growing district or a barley-growing district he might be very sympathetic in those directions. The result is that the duty on cider has been abolished, and a larger quantity of cider is consumed than before the duty was abolished. I do not know whether the increase in the consumption of cider has promoted temperance; certainly I have tasted cider which is stronger than beer. It is very unfair that an article of common consumption, like beer, should be too highly taxed, and I am very glad to hear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deal with the matter in a sympathetic way when occasion permits.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will stand firm in this matter. He has my sympathy. He was attacked by hon. Members of the Liberal party yesterday because he was exempting the breweries from rates, like other places. He is attacked for being too lenient to the
brewers, one day, and now he is attacked because he keeps on these duties. I hope that he will not listen to the seductive pleading of hon. Members, and I hope that the Liberal party will support him, including the new Member for Carmarthen (Lieut.-Colonel Jones), who must not judge the attitude of his party by the speech of the hon. Member for North Southwark, otherwise he may be wondering why he was returned for a great temperance stronghold like Carmarthen. I rise to support the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I congratulate him on the fact that if he has not been able to convert the party with which he works now to his well-known temperance views, at any rate he has brought about a great increase in temperance, by means of taxation. There can be no doubt that much of the falling off in drunkenness is owing to the artificial rise in the price of intoxicating liquors. We are getting the money and we are promoting temperance, and I look forward to the day when the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to look to a new source of revenue, because the people will have lost the habit of drinking intoxicating liquors.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Repeal of certain stamp duties.)

As from the thirty-first day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, the stamp duty upon share warrants and stock certificates to bearer, imposed by the First Schedule to the Stamp Act, 1891, shall cease to be payable.—[Mr. Radford.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. RADFORD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I move the new Clause in order to draw attention to what I regard as the utter inadequacy of the present stamp duties on share warrants and stock certificates to bearer. I will deal with negotiable securities under two broad heads—those the property in which passes by manual delivery and do not require any accompanying transfer deed which has to be stamped—those are what I will term "bearer securities"; and those which are registered in the records either of the company or the municipality or the other body whose securities they are, the property in which can only pass by means of a duly executed and duly
stamped transfer deed. The stamp duty on such transfers varies from £l per cent. in respect of nearly all securities down to 5s. per cent. in respect; of certain Colonial Government securities, while the transfer deeds of British Government securities do not require any stamp. The present rate of duty in respect of bearer securities varies similarly from as little as 5s. per cent. in respect of Colonial Government securities to £1 per cent. in respect of Colonial municipal securities, up to £3 per cent. in respect of ordinary stocks and shares in this country.
No doubt when these duties were first made it was intended to preserve some sort of balance between the initial amount payable in respect of the bearer securities, which freed them from any transfer duties whatever, however often they changed hands in the future, and those securities in respect of which there had to be paid a fresh transfer fee every time they changed hands. The figures, to take the simplest example in respect of ordinary stock and shares in this country, are £1 per cent. on a transfer by deed which is payable every time a transaction takes place, even if it takes place every month, and an initial payment of £3 per cent. in respect of such stock and shares should they be issued as "bearer securities," which initial payment enables them to change hands for ever thereafter free from Stamp Duty. It may be that in some cases the difference between the £1 per cent. and the £3 per cent. may be balanced, bearing in mind that much stock and many shares remain in one name or in certain names for great periods of time, without changing hands.
I should like to draw attention to the statement which was made a few months ago at the annual meeting of a large public company in this country which was enjoying unusual prosperity and whose £1 ordinary shares were standing at the price of £11. At the general meeting of the company the Chairman said that they were going to convene extraordinary meetings of the shareholders for the purpose of converting their share capital from shares registered in the company's books and transferable by transfer deeds, into share warrants to bearer. He explained the desirability of this course by giving an example. He
said that assuming 100 shares in their company changed hands at the present market price of £11, the purchase consideration on the 100 shares would be £1,100 and the stamp duty on the transfer would be £11, and that if those shares changed hands a few weeks or a few months later a duty of £11 would again be payable on their transfer, assuming that the price of the shares remained at £11. He pointed out that when they had converted their capital into share warrants to bearer, in respect of this same £100 worth of shares the initial duty of £3 only would he payable, and that £3 would free those £100 of share warrants to bearer from duty for all time, as against the £11 that would have to be paid every time they changed hands under transfer by deed. I will trouble the Committee with only one other example. In the case of Colonial Government securities when they are issued as "bearer securities" only 5s. per cent. initial payment has to be made, but if they are issued as transferable by deed, 5s. per cent. transfer duty is payable every time they change hands. If that stock changes hands only twice in its lifetime, the initial payment of 5s. for bearer securities is exceeded.
I think I have made a case showing that at the present time our Stamp Duties, as regards these bearer securities and those transferable by deed, are wrongly balanced, and wrongly balanced in favour of the bearer securities; and that is assuming that either class of securities is equally desirable in the public interest. There is no doubt in my mind that the existence of bearer securities on the market is a danger, and it is only making the position worse by adding to their number. It is against the public interest. This is not the right moment to develop that argument, but if the Financial Secretary or the Chancellor of the Exchequer cares to have a talk with me at any time at their convenience, I shall be pleased to give them my views in private. I feel that this is a matter which should be dealt with, and as I am precluded by the Rules of the House from putting down any Amendment to increase the duty payable in respect of these bearer stocks and shares, the only course open to me is to move to delete this particular Clause entirely. I hope
the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider the matter betweew now and Report as to whether it is not desirable that he should bring in proposals then to make these duties more commensurate with what equity and the public interest demand.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I do not quite understand the point at which my hon. Friend is aiming. He appears to be hostile to bearer securities, but he does not wish me to discuss the advisability or inadvisability of the existence of bearer securities. All he apparently wishes to do is to cancel the policy of imposing the Stamp Duty on share warrants to bearer in order that he may bring in legislation by a side wind to increase these duties, I should be out of order in dealing with that matter. The hon. Member himself realised that he would be out of order in moving an Amendment which would impose a charge upon the taxpayer, and as he does realise that he would be out of order in doing this, except in a roundabout way, and has asked me to consider proposals between now and the Report stage, I can only say that I cannot accept his present proposal, but will consider any proposal he would like to make if he will let me have it to deal with it on another occasion.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Before the hon. Member withdraws the Clause, may I say that the question of the leakage of revenue with regard to Stamp Duties in respect of certain classes of securities has already been discussed on a new Clause on the Company's Bill, and I invite the hon. Member to address his attention to the short discussion which took place in Standing Committee. Some of us will be very happy to confer with him before the Amendments are finally settled for the Report stage of the Companies' Bill, which will be in a few days' time.

Mr. RADFORD: I thank the Financial Secretary and the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) for what they have said, and, with the permission of the Committee, I will withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 15 of Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915.)

Sub-section (1) of Section fifteen of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, as amended by Section 13 of the Finance Act, 1919, shall read as if for the words "three months" were substituted the words "one month."—[Sir A. Pownall.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Perhaps a few words of explanation may be given in regard to the question with which this Clause deals. By the Finance Act of 1915 the Customs was given for the first time the power to restrict clearances for three months on dutiable goods from bond. That power was taken during the War, and for 12 months after the War, but it has been found that the liberties of the subject, once they have been curtailed, are not easy to win back, and in 1919 this power of restriction upon clearances of dutiable goods from bond was continued for all time in favour of the Customs. What happens is that any trader dealing in these particular commodities—it is mainly the wine trade which is concerned—is liable to find in the three months before the Budget that he cannot pay the duty on goods which he is getting forwarded in the ordinary way of business, because of the expansion of his business or because of a change in taste from the wines of Portugal to the wines of Spain. It leads to great inconvenience in the wine trade, and to great delay in finding out from the Customs what goods he can clear and what goods he cannot clear.
Generally, the rule is to go by the figures of the previous year. It is therefore suggested that instead of three months the period of one month should be put in, in which case the Customs would have the power to limit clearances from bond for one month before the Budget. They would not have this power of rationing, which was given them during the War and which should not have been continued after the War. This particular trade, the wine trade, has been a very good friend to the Customs in recent years. The duties were doubled in 1920, and were again increased last year. It has been a very fruitful milch cow, if I may use that
expression in connection with an alcoholic beverage, and I think it deserves more consideration than it has received. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary, if they cannot see their way to accept the Clause, will give some assurance that the three months' power to restrict clearances will not be enforced except in very exceptional circumstances.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Perhaps it will be convenient if I examine exactly what my hon. Friend means by his proposal. He seeks to limit the power of the Customs to restrict clearances from bond to one month, but he has, however, overlooked the fact that under the terms of the Section of the Act in question successive Treasury Orders may apparently be issued covering in the aggregate any duration of time during which it is considered that restrictions on deliveries may be thought to be necessary. Therefore, to limit the period to one month as proposed would still leave the discretion of the Treasury unfettered as to the total period covered by successive Orders. The proposal, therefore, would not carry out the intention in the hon. Member's mind. He has put the case in a very friendly spirit and has asked me to look into the matter. Without pledging myself I shall be happy to consult with him in order to see what the position really is.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Stamp Duty on bonds and other instruments securing sums periodically payable.)

"For the purpose of removing; doubts in the assessment of the stamp duty charged by the Stamp Act, 1891, under the heading in the First Schedule to that Act 'Bond Covenant or Instrument of any kind whatsoever' the words 'sum periodically payable' at the end of Sub-section (1) of that heading shall be construed as referring to the sum payable at each of the periods stated in the instrument and not to the aggregate of the sums payable for the period of a year."—[Mr. Withers.]

Brought up and read the First time.

Mr. WITHERS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
It sounds rather a serious mouthful, but in homely language I will try to explain the point. People from time to time enter into covenants and deeds by which one pays another a certain sum
periodically for the period of their lives or some other indefinite period. A husband may covenant to pay his wife £1 a day or £5 a day, and the Stamp Duties are regulated and the Stamp Act, 1891. Under that Act it is provided that the sums shall be assessed in the following way:
For the term of life, or any other indefinite period, 2s. 6d. for every £5, or any fractional part of the annuity or sum periodically payable.
It means that if a man covenants to pay another man during his life, or to pay his wife during her life, or any other indefinite period, £5 per day, he has to pay a Stamp Duty on the deed of 2s. 6d. If it is £35 he will pay 17s. 6d. If it is £140 per month it is £3 15s., and if it is £1,825 per year, the Stamp Duty is £45 12s. 6d. This was the interpretation of the Act laid down in 1896 by the test case, Clifford against the Inland Revenue Commissioners, and it has always been held to be the law up to quite recently. Unfortunately, recently solicitors and others tendering deeds to be stamped on this basis have been told by the Inland Revenue Commissioners that they have changed their practice. I have a letter dated 12th March, 1928, from the Inland Revenue Commissioners, in which they say:
It is true that the Commissioners have on previous occasions assessed the duty on the monetary payments in cases similar to the present but they have recently had under review the correctness of their practice. They now consider that securities or periodical payments which are to continue for life and are not liable to be brought to an abrupt conclusion except by death, is a security or annuity within the meaning of the Statute.
Under the old practice a man covenanting to pay another £5 a day had to pay a Stamp Duty of 2s. 6d. Now he has to pay a Stamp Duty of £5 12s. 6d. I submit that this is not altogether right. I have been in the House but a short time, but I have heard it laid down with approbation that it is not right by a purely administrative act to impose the new taxation upon the subject. I am moving this Clause in order to raise the question. My suggestion is that the Inland Revenue Commissioners ought to adhere to the old practice or that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should bring in new substantive proposals to meet the situation. My Clause asks that, for the purpose of removing doubts, the old practice should
be adhered to, and I hope I have made a rather difficult legal question clear to the Committee.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I agree that this is a very difficult question which the hon. Member has raised, and when the hon. Member's speech appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT we shall examine it most carefully. This is a matter which it is difficult to deal with in discussion here in the ordinary way. As I understand the proposal of the hon. Member it deals with Stamp Duty on bonds and other instruments for securing sums which are payable periodically, and, as I read the suggested New Clause, it proposes that under the heading of "Bond covenant or instrument of any kind whatsoever" in the First Schedule to the Stamp Act, 1891, the words "sum periodically payable" are to be construed as referring to the sum payable at each of the periods stated in the instrument, and not to the aggregate of the sums payable in the year. The hon. Member's argument seems to be that in the case of bonds securing monthly or weekly payments for life, or during a term of years, the Exchequer claims duty, as on an annuity on the total amount payable in each year. If that be so, it appears from my reading of it that the wording of the proposed New Clause would be ineffective for the purpose indicated by the hon. Member, but apart from that we could not support the proposed New Clause. We take a different view. In our view, the fair basis of charge is the yearly amount payable whether that amount is expressed to be payable weekly, monthly or quarterly. We take the view that any alteration in the law should not be in the direction proposed by my hon. Friend, but in the sense which I have expressed. I am sure he will not press his point, and when we have read his speech and examined it we shall be able to come to a better understanding of his point than would be possible by merely debating the proposed new Clause.

Sir MALCOLM MACNAGHTEN: I hope my hon. Friend will not withdraw his proposed New Clause. The problem is not as difficult as the Financial Secretary seems to think. Some years ago the meaning of this Clause was interpreted by the Courts and the Courts
decided that where there was a bond to secure the payment of periodical sums the Stamp Duty should be levied on the amount payable periodically. If it was an annuity you were to pay on the annual sum; if a monthly payment on the monthly sum, and if a weekly payment on the weekly sum. For a great many years the Board of Inland Revenue were good enough to accept the decision of the Court, but recently they have come to the conclusion that the Courts were wrong, and, instead of taking the course which was open to them of getting another case stated, to see if they would have any better luck, and perhaps going to the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords, they decided to change the law administratively without any reference either to the Courts or to this House. That is the gravamen of our complaint. Surely it is a serious complaint. Surely an administrative Department ought to obey the law as laid down by the Courts. If they think the law ought to be changed, then they ought to go to Parliament to get the law changed. I hope I have made clear the ground of our complaint, and I hope that the Department for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible will, in the future, obey the law as laid down in the Courts or else come to Parliament to get the law changed. But as long as the Courts have laid down the law, the Minister's Department ought not to try to change it themselves.

Mr. RYE: I also hope that my hon. Friend will not withdraw the proposed New Clause. It appears to me that the Inland Revenue are endeavouring to force the taxpayer, who comes forward with a document which requires stamping, to take an appeal to the Courts which the Inland Revenue authorities themselves neglected to do after the decision of 1896. The taxpayer in such a situation is faced with these alternatives. The first alternative is to pay the Stamp Duty—which is vastly higher than the duty imposed since 1896 until a recent period. The difference is enormous. Under the decision of 1896 the duty on a weekly payment of £5 was only half-a-crown; but now the Inland Revenue authorities contend that it should be nearly £50. As I say, the first alternative of the taxpayer is to pay a Stamp Duty vastly more than the
Stamp Duty imposed in the first instance. The second alternative is to leave the document unstamped because the Inland Revenue authorities decline to accept the lower rate, which as we suggest, is the rate payable under the decision of the Court. In that case, he must go away with his document unstamped and risk all the possible inconveniences and even penalties of such a course. The third alternative is to appeal to the Courts under the Stamp Act to assess the duty. That, in effect, is appealing on behalf of the Board of Inland Revenue who failed to appeal as far back as 1896. It is manifestly unfair.
The decision of 1896 was accepted by the Board of Inland Revenue in that year and faithfully followed until a recent date. Now some zealous, or over-zealous official, having a little time on his hands has gone into the matter, and has concluded that the Court was wrong in that decision, and that the Board should force the issue by declining any longer to impose the old rate of duty. Where is this practice going to end? The Board accepted the lower rate of duty. Now they claim this greatly advanced rate. Is it not possible that they will come forward again and say that the basis which they now propose as the correct one is, altogether wrong? May we not find another zealous official, with time on his hands, going into these questions, and saying that his predecessor was wrong and that there should be a new basis of payment? For all we know, the Board might come forward and say that the duty ought to be based on the principle of succession; that they must find out the age of each person in receipt of payments of this kind and assess the duty on the full value of the succession. Or, they might say that they would like to review these duties, year by year, or month by month, or even week by week.
They might fix the duty on the basis of one year and then make inquiries to ascertain whether the person entitled to the payment was alive at the end of the year and then fix another year's duty and so go on, hoping for the benefit of the taxpayers generally, that the annuitant might live to be as old as Methuselah. If the Inland Revenue authorities were satisfied to follow the decision of the Court in the years following
1896, it is not reasonable for them now to say to the taxpayer who comes forward with a document for stamping, "We are not going to put on Stamp Duty as defined by the Court but a vastly larger sum of duty; and if you do not like it you can take your document away unstamped, or you can appeal to the Court and do that which we were not prepared to do in 1896 and which we cannot do to-day because we have lost our right of appeal against that decision." I am surprised that the Financial Secretary did not understand the proposed new Clause which was so very clearly put forward and I hope my hon. Friend will stand by it.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I wish to support what has been said by the last two speakers. This is not a complicated matter but is simple and straightforward. We are not here discussing the merits of the duty. What we are discussing is the right of the House of Commons. The House of Commons has always been jealous of its privilege as the only body in the country which imposes taxation on the subject. The Mover of the proposed new Clause has just read a letter from the Inland Revenue in which they admit that a certain practice has been followed for some years past in this matter but they claim to alter the practice and in future to impose heavier taxation. There is no question here at all of merits. The House of Commons ought vigorously to oppose the action of any Department of State which arrogates to itself the right of increasing the burdens on the subject, unless the matter has first rums before the House of Commons in a proper and constitutional way. The House of Commons ought to be as jealous of its rights to-day as it was in the past, and ought to resist the imposition of any taxes on the subject, by any by-way or any underhand method, by any Department of State, until the proposal has been thoroughly explained to and sifted by the House of Commons and supported and passed by the House of Commons. I hope my hon. Friend will stand by his proposal which only maintains the law in this respect as it has been for many years past. Unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer is able to give us definite assurances that the law will remain as it has been in the past,
and that Government officials will not be allowed to alter it, I hope my hon. Friend will press his new Clause.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that some of my hon. Friends in their eagerness are spoiling a case in which there is a great deal of substance by overstating it. This is really not a question of over-riding the powers and rights of the House of Commons by departmental action. The powers of the House of Commons in regard to these matters are exercised through the Inland Revenue. The Board carries out the law as a Department of State and the Courts are above the Inland Revenue to see whether it exercises its functions correctly or not. It is true that there has been a change of practice in this matter, but it is a change of practice which is justified in many directions by precedent. I am not now on the merits of this question. I am only saying that in many parts of our system of direct taxation the practice adopted may vary on this side or on that, and that the practice is at the discretion of the Inland Revenue, subject to the Courts always being the ultimate, authority to pronounce upon the propriety or otherwise, or the validity or otherwise, of the actions which the officials take. So we need not go back to Magna Charta or the Bill of Rights in this subject. As a matter of fact, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary in the course of his remarks, indicated that we were somewhat impressed by some of the points that had been made in this discussion, and that further consideration will be given to this matter before the Report stage. Of course, if we are forced to a Division, and have to vote on the matter, I shall take that as disposing of it.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The right hon. Gentleman, instead of ending, as we hoped he would, with a spirit of conciliation, has practically threatened the Committee, and has told my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Withers) and those who hold the same view as he does, that if they stick to the Clause he will not even give consideration to what he knows to be a just cause. That is not the way to get business through the House, and it is not fair to those who have been taking a live interest in the matter. It affects a very large number
of people who are annuitants, and those who receive money regularly under legal documents. The simple point that has been put very fairly by those who have supported this new Clause, and who are not Members of the Opposition, but are the right hon. Gentleman's own supporters, has been this: They have asked themselves, and they have asked the Committee, under what authority these Stamp Duties are now being demanded. Anybody speaking for the Treasury must say that they are demanded under the authority of the Stamp Act of 1891. The next question is: Has there been a change? Whatever change there has been, has been made by a decision of the Court in 1896. Whatever was enacted in 1891 was interpreted in 1896, and there has been no new interpretation since 1896. The rule that was followed by the Treasury from 1896 until quite recently was correct. It had the force of law behind it, and what my hon. Friends are asking is that we should not put any of His Majesty's subjects under these changes without the full authority of the law and the Courts that have to interpret the matter. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not take the attitude that, if the Committee divides on the matter, he will not consider it, and I hope that he will supplement the remarks that he has just made and give consideration to the matter before the Report stage.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot admit that the action taken by the officials was ultra vires or improper. Indeed, I have argued clearly in the opposite sense. At the same time, when a Measure like this, which is full of complicated points, is before Parliament, and I hear arguments used which show that there is anxiety in some particular aspects, then, as I have said, I consider that I may well promise to give further consideration to these points before the Report stage. I do not admit that the action taken by the Government or the officials, who act under the authority of Parliament, has been wrong. It is very probable that the more this matter is ventilated, the more it will be seen that their action has been right in accordance with their authority. I promise to look into the matter, and I hope that I shall be able to give unprejudiced examination to the case, and that I shall not be fortified in the opposite sense by a Parliamentary decision to-night which might well be to reject the
contention of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Withers). I hope hon. Members will allow it to go forward to the Report stage without prejudicing it by taking a hasty decision in the matter.

Mr. WITHERS: I do not wish to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman. What my hon. Friends want is to have this matter, which is one of substance, considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We wish to give him the opportunity of considering it, and we hope that it will be raised by him again on the Report stage. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

The following new Clause stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Sir ASSHETON POWNALL:

NEW CLAUSE.—(Dividends paid by limited liability companies.)

Section two hundred and eleven, Subsection (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1918, which provides that a person liable to pay any rent, interest, or annuity, or to make other annual payment, who has not made a sufficient deduction of Income Tax, may make up the deficiency on the occasion of the next payment, shall apply equally in the case of dividends paid by limited liability companies.

In the event of there being no distribution on the date upon which the next dividend would normally have become due, the adjustment shall, nevertheless, be made on that date.

The Section shall be extended to enable such person or company in like manner to adjust any excess of deduction.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): This new Clause, would, in certain circumstances, involve a charge, and is, therefore, out of order.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Law as to redemption of Land Tax.)

(1) The capital sum to be paid under Section thirty-two of the Finance Act, 1896, as amended by Section sixty-four of the Finance Act, 1921, by the owner of any land to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the purpose of the redemption of land tax charged on that land shall be a sum equal to twenty times instead of twenty-five times the sum assessed on that land.

Provided that nothing in this Section shall affect the terms of any contract for the redemption of land tax entered into
under the said Sections before the commencement of this Act.

(2) The words "one-twentieth part of such surplus" shall be substituted for "one twenty-fifth part of such surplus" in Sub-section (3) of the said Section thirty-two of the Finance Act, 1896, as amended by the said Section sixty-four of the Finance Act, 1821.—[Brigadier-General Clifton Brown.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
It is generally agreed that it is desirable to encourage landowners to take all the burdens possible from the land. The new Clause seeks to make the purchase price of the Land Tax 20 years instead of 25 years as at present. I would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that under the 1896 Act it was 30 years on a 3 per cent. basis. In 1921 it was made 25 years on a 4 per cent. basis. This Amendment seeks to make it 20 years on a 5 per cent. basis and consequently to give more encouragement to the landowner to redeem his Land Tax. In view of the fact that trustee securities and other first class securities can get 5 per cent., it does not scent much encouragement if the landowner can get only 4 per cent. The income from the Land Tax was £673,464 in 1925–26 and, if this 5 pr cent. purchase were granted it would mean only a loss of £120,000 or £130,000. The most important point is that the tax is an onerous tax to deal with and tends to hinder improvement and development. The tax increases as the annual value of the land is added to, and if any works are carried out and buildings are erected it increases the burden of the tax; and, if it is intended to develop building land, one of the first steps a landowner must take is to redeem the Land Tax. As there is a great need for building now, this is a good time to encourage the owner to develop his property in that way, and in the national interest we should give him favourable terms for redemption for the same reasons that were given in 1921 for the reduction from 30 years to 25 years.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: My hon. and gallant Friend made use of the expression, "to give him favourable terms for redemption." When I look at the existing law, I must say that I think the
landowner has very favourable terms for redemption now. He is able to redeem his tax on 25 years' purchase and my hon. and gallant Friend desires that he should have the right to redeem it on 20 years' purchase. I do not think it right or just to take 5 per cent. as the standard yield of trustee securities. My own native city of Norwich does not pay 5 per cent. It has raised a loan in only the last few days at 4¾ per cent. Old 2½ per cent. Consols are at 56 and yield £4 7s. 6d. per cent. That means that if you put your money in Consols you get £4 7s. 6d. per cent. If you invest it in redemption of Land Tax you get £4 per cent. There is an advantage now which accrues to landowners, which should not be lost sight of. The position which he is in of being able to redeem Land Tax at 25 years is one that he should take advantage of now for his own benefit, or he may one day regret not having done so. Take a plot of land, say, of the annual value of £5. The Land Tax at say 1s. in the £ charged on it works out at 5s. a year. As it now stands he can redeem that 5s. for £6 5s., that is by 25 years' purchase. Suppose that plot of land becomes developed for building, and that the value of the land with the buildings upon it becomes worth £125 a year. If he wants to redeem that £125 and the tax is 1s. in the £ he will have to pay 25 times £6 5s., whereas if he redeems now while conditions are so favourable, he can redeem for £6 5s. I therefore think that the terms are extremely fair to the landowner, and so far from desiring better terms by being allowed to redeem his Land Tax in 20 years instead of 25, he should be contented with the conditions as they are.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

The following new Clause stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Rear-Admiral BEAMISH:

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Income Tax Act, 1918, Section 149.)

At the end of Sub-section (2) (a) of Section one hundred and forty-nine of the Income Tax Act, 1918, there shall be added the words "provided that in all cases where the surveyor is the appellant the costs shall be borne by the Crown."

The CHAIRMAN: This new Clause means a charge, and is therefore out of Order.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Should I be in Order if, by removing one word and putting in a couple of others, I could take away that possible charge? I suggest that it would be acceptable if the word "Crown" were deleted, and the words "Chancellor of the Exchequer" substituted. That, I think, would not mean any charge upon the taxpayer, but on the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself.

The CHAIRMAN: In order to put in some Minister of the Crown, it would be necessary to have a Resolution. I cannot allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer—

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am a subject.

The CHAIRMAN: After all, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a subject, and a charge cannot be put upon a subject without a Resolution.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Relief to Surtax payers.)

Whereas under Section forty-two of the Finance Act, 1927, Surtax is due and payable as a deferred instalment of Income Tax, it shall be provided that where a person assessed to Surtax dies (or ceases to be liable to Surtax) during the year following the year of assessment, the amount of Surtax payable in respect of the year preceding his death or cessation from liability shall be restricted to the proportion of the year during which the person dying or ceasing to be liable was subject to taxation.—[Sir H. Buckingham.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir HENRY BUCKINGHAM: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is the second time during the Debate on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill that we have had an opportunity of discussing the question of the Surtax. We had a Debate last week on an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott), and, obviously, neither he, nor anybody else expected that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would accept the Amendment, because it would have completely upset the whole balance of the Budget. We had, however, a Debate on the matter, and to-day we have another opportunity. This new Clause would not upset in any sense the balance of the Budget. The result of the Clause would be that the
Surtax payers would be put back into the position in which they have been up to the present. In other words, their executors would not pay the extra year's Surtax after their death. I admit the Chancellor would lose the £60,000,000 he will get if the Surtax Clauses are put into law, but it is quite possible for him, if he wishes to do so, to accept this Clause without upsetting the whole balance of the finance of the year. I do not intend to make a long speech this evening, in view of the business still in front of us, and because I believe there are a good many other hon. Members who wish to speak upon the matter who did not have the opportunity of doing so last week. Anyhow, I hope there are, and I hope they will speak, because the more this matter is ventilated the better for us all, and, I think I may say, the better for the Chancellor.
I made my protest last week against the imposition of this extra taxation upon a very small class of taxpayers. I believe that if the Chancellor had come to the Super-tax payers and said "I want £2,000,000 more to balance my Budget" the Super-tax payers would have been quite patriotic enough—they always have been—to pay. I have protested, and I protest again, not so much against the levy of £2,000,000 a year upon Super-tax payers as I protest, and most strongly, against the insidious and surreptitious manner in which this tax was jumbled up in the mazes of those extraordinary Income Tax Clauses last year. I protest, too, against the association which the Chancellor tries to establish between this impositon of taxation and his system of simplification. The two things are entirely different and entirely separate. I also protest against the Chancellor's statement that this extra tax upon Surtax payers is necessary to balance the loss which he said he will make upon the change in the assessments under Schedule E, because I believe that loss is entirely imaginary. If there be any loss at all, I challenge the Chancellor, or anyone else in the House, or the officials of the Treasury, to show that that loss can possibly be for more than one year, whereas this particular tax is a tax which the Chancellor has admitted means £60,000,000 spread over a generation, or,
roughly, somewhere about £2,000,000 per annum.
I am not going to make a speech on this matter, but before formally moving this Clause I should like to ask the Chancellor whether he has had time to consider the appeal I made to him last week with regard to people who may have a considerable income but who die with very small capital. I need not repeat what I said, or recall to his mind the examples I mentioned last week, because be is quite well, aware of them, but I should like to know whether he has had time to consider this matter. There is an undoubted hardship in the case of a man with £5,000 per annum who leaves an estate of £5,000. The actual imposition of this extra Surtax means considerably more than double the Estate Duty—on a small estate. In conclusion, I would ask the Chancellor to answer this question.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The subject raised in this new Clause was fully debated during the passage of the Bill through its actual Committee stage, and the opinions of the Government were fully stated by myself and also by the Attorney General; and, therefore, when my hon. Friend repeats the appeal which he made on a previous occasion with his customary lucidity, backed by the knowledge which a lifetime's study of the Income Tax has given to him, and does it with all the ardour with which his championship of the Income Tax payer is invested, I can only deal in my reply with such new material as is needed to complete the answer I have already given. Let us look at the matter from two points of view. First, let us look at it from the point of view of procedure. The hon. Member used the word "surreptitious." He said we had surreptitiously imposed this additional tax upon the public under the camouflage—though that was not the word he used—of a simplification scheme. If there had been any surreptitiousness it has been fully-unmasked for more than a year past. As a matter of fact, there was none. At the outset, as soon as we got into Committee upon the Finance Bill last year, it was clearly stated that this involved an extra charge on the tax payer—there was no concealment of that fact—and that it was an offset against the remission which was necessary for the purposes of
the simplification scheme in regard to Schedule E. On the last occasion, I read what I said, and I will now read what the Attorney-General said. He said:
The distinction is that in the case of people who come within Schedule E they will pay less Income Tax and Surtax than they would if the alteration were not made. They are put back one year as the scale goes up. The net result will be about to balance the extra amount. Therefore if it were a matter of financial advantage there would be no profit in making the alteration. I say frankly it cannot be the object of this law to gain some advantage to the Revenue, because there is no advantage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th July, 1927; col. 361, Vol. 209.]
I also said:
I fully appreciate the fact that while in certain directions the simplification scheme meant a loss to the Exchequer, in this respect there was a gain to the revenue of an almost exactly similar amount."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th July, 1927; col. 349, Vol. 209.]
I am not saying this to justify the merits. All I am saying is that the fact that there was an additional charge, which we estimate at over £1,000,000 a year in the aggregate on the Super-tax payer, and that it was balanced by a similar remission, though to a somewhat different class of taxpayers, under Schedule E was clearly before the House last year.

Sir H. BUCKINGHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman justify the statement that there will be a loss of £1,000,000 a year upon the adjustments under Schedule E?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am for the moment dealing with the word "surreptitious" which my hon. Friend used. I say that all this was brought out most clearly and plainly in the Finance Bill last year. In those discussions we had the advantage of the assistance of the hon. Member who now fills the office of Deputy-Chairman of Committees, and who exposed the matter with the utmost candour, so that there was no manner of doubt exactly how the position stood. Therefore, I say, there has been nothing of a surreptitious nature. The exact, proper, correct procedure was followed throughout, and Parliament and the country have known, in so far as they are able to follow these complicated proposals, that there was to be an extra charge on the taxpayer.
I leave the question of procedure and come to the merits of the change. Is it a fair step we have taken? I am bound to say that the more I have considered it the less I have felt that it is an unjust or inequitable thing to do. After all we are only applying to the Super-tax payer exactly the same measure as is applied to the Income Tax payer. No one pays Super-tax for any more years than he has had a super income. There is no question at all of taxing the same income twice over. For every year that there has been an income there is an Income Tax imposed. That in the law of the ordinary Income Tax payer. All we do in this Bill is to make the law for the Super-tax payer march on exactly the same road, step by step, as the law in regard to the Income Tax payer. My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the hard case of a man who makes a large income for one year, and that the last year of his life, and of the heavy burden which is then imposed upon his widow, the source of income having presumably stopped. An equally hard case, though on a smaller scale—and perhaps all the harder because it is on a smaller scale—arises in the case of a person with an income under £2,000 a year. If that man has succeeded in obtaining a substantial income in the last year of his life, though under the Super-tax limit, after he dies the Income Tax for that year, so far as he has not paid it, is collected from the widow. Therefore, there really is no difference between the two classes, except that the Super-tax affects people who are rather better off than the Income Tax paying class. It should also be remembered that this payment of Super-tax by the executors after death is deducted from the amount of the estate before death duties are charged upon it; although the scales are not similar. It is so.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: I am not disputing it.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Though I do not by any means say the one balances the other, it is pro tanto an offset. On the whole I must rest where I was before. First of all, there has been no improper procedure, no ambuscade has been sprung upon the taxpayer. Secondly, I claim that we have merely assimilated the prin-
ciple of the Super-tax to that of the Income Tax, and that principle has always been accepted, and is accepted now, as right and proper in the case of the Income Tax. If we had not got relief through obtaining this £1,000,000 a year in the process of simplification, we should have carried through the simplification at a loss which the revenue cannot at present stand. My idea was that the simplification should pay for itself. My hon. Friend dealt with that matter and gave us assistance in preparing the whole of that great scheme of simplification, and I am sure he knows that of itself it is a good thing. But I could not carry that out at a loss to the Revenue, and I propose that it should pay for itself, as it will do.

Major-General Sir JOHN DAVIDSON: Did the right hon. Gentleman explain all this last year?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Certainly, and if my hon. and gallant Friend had followed the extracts which I read on this occasion, and also the longer extract which I read on the occasion of the all-night sitting, he would see that it was clearly explained and further that it was amplified and filled in by the very well-informed speeches made by many of those who sit round him at the present time. I am not in a position to forgo this revenue. If I were not to impose this altered form of the Super-tax which was placed before Parliament and provisionally assented to by Parliament last year I should have to seek some additional source of direct taxation to balance the loss. I am sure the Committee will not press me to do that.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: We have this grain of cold comfort from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We now know exactly where we are. We know that the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to forgo any portion of the revenue which he foresees from this additional taxation. I do not remember that last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer used any such language at all. I do not remember that last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of additional or new taxation, or of balancing one change of method against the other. My impression is that he stated very clearly a year ago that this was a change, not of substance, but of form, and that is the
first reason why some of us are insisting that this matter shall be clarified during the present discussion. I want in a very few words to explain what has happened since a week ago, and to support the hon. Member for Guildford (Sir H. Buckingham), who, I hope, means to press this new Clause to a Division. It was impossible for me to ask the Committee to divide a week ago when I moved the Amendment to which reference has been made for the reason that, had we divided on that Amendment, it would have meant that the whole scheme of the Budget would have been overthrown for the present year. I am a keen supporter of the Budget as a whole, and I regard it as one of the greatest Budgets that has been produced for a good many generations.
Since a week ago, I and other hon. Members have been overwhelmed by correspondence on this matter, and there has been a unanimous opinion expressed in that correspondence that it was understood that a year ago no taxation of this kind was intended. This year the Chancellor of the Exchequer has frankly admitted that he cannot afford to part with an additional revenue which he puts at £1,000,000 a year. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to Admit that that is only a guess, and the total additional sum spread over 20 or 10 or 60 years depends on contingencies which neither he nor I can possibly foresee. I think the right hon. Gentleman will be ready to admit that his £1,000,000 is a guess. It may be a shrewd guess, but it cannot be more; than that. Even the "Times," which is usually exceedingly moderate in these matters, declared that it was difficult to excuse the surreptitious manner in which the Surtax provisions were introduced. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has quoted from a speech made last year by the Attorney-General, and I will venture to quote from another part of the remarks of the Attorney-General, who, speaking on the 30th of June, 1927, used these words:
Under the Clause nobody will pay Surtax for more or less years than he has a Surtax income. Everyone will pay Surtax on exactly the number of years for which he enjoys an income which renders him liable to Surtax. Under Super-tax people paid the tax for a year less than they
ought, for they paid it not in the year they first entered it, but the year after.
Whose fault is that? Did the revenue not exact all the money they ought to have exacted from the Super-tax payer. I have been quoting from a speech by the Attorney-General from which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has quoted, and I thought that, as the right hon. Gentleman had quoted him, I was entitled to quote him as well. The Attorney-General continued:
Now we are changing the system. The Surtax, which is only a deferred amount of Income Tax, is going to be levied in every case for exactly the number of years for which a person is liable to pay it—for exactly the period during which the person surtaxed enjoys an income which entitles him to the Surtax."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June, 1927; col. 751, Vol. 208.]
That was the language used by the Attorney-General a year ago, and many of my correspondents are calling my attention to the language that was then used. One of them begs me to teach the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the last thing that I should attempt to do—
that sly tricks do not pay. As a Conservative I am ashamed and disgusted that a so-called Conservative should have brought in what I can only describe as a slim piece of legislation.
Another correspondent makes a reference which I am unable to interpret, and he says:
Please do not let this bumptious voting man bluff you.
Of course, this is merely the froth of the matter, but there is some stout stuff behind it. What is the substance of the points which we are attempting to make? They have been admirably put by the hon. Member for Guildford. There are really two points in this new Clause as I think the Committee will have observed. We are asked to declare that
where a person assessed to Surtax dies (or ceases to be liable to Surtax) during the year following the year of assessment, the amount of Surtax payable in respect of the year preceding his death or cessation from liability shall be restricted to the proportion of the year during which the person dying or ceasing to be liable was subject 10 taxation.
The Committee will see that we are contemplating the case of a person liable to Surtax who dies, or the person who having been liable to Surtax ceases to be so liable. We say in regard to the first case that it is simply an additional
Death Duty with this peculiarity, and this peculiar injustice and inequality, that it is a Death Duty which has no relation whatever to the size of the estate left by the deceased person. Whatever you may say of the hardship of the Death Duties as they are at present imposed, this at least can be said of them, that they do bear some relation to the size of the estate which has been left by the deceased person. That system may inflict a hardship upon certain persons, and nobody denies that in certain cases it does inflict a hardship; but it may be said that the Death Duties, as at present levied, have some relationship to the size of the estate. But this duty which you are now proposing to impose, not by the direct method of Death Duties but by a Surtax levied on an additional year, bears no relation whatever to the actual estate of the deceased person. It has already been pointed out that a man may die suddenly who has been enjoying a large income, and his estate may be made liable to duty out of all proportion to the capital sum which he leaves behind him at his death. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give more consideration to that point than he appears to have done up to the present. I trust that between now and the Report stage, although he has met our new Clause with a stiff upper lip, he will be able to give some further consideration to it before the Finance Bill is finally passed into law.
7.0 p.m.
Besides the case of death this new Clause deals with another case, where a man's income through retirement or some other cause suddenly drops let us say from £10,000 a year to £5,000 a year. He may be a man who has been enjoying a large salary as a managing director, and his income may suddenly drop from £10,000 to £5,000 or less. I want very respectfully to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a point on which I ask him to be good enough to reassure the House. I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give me an answer to this specific question. Take a man with £10,000 a year which he earns in the year ending the 5th of April, 1928. That man sets aside, if he is a prudent man, some £1,100 to pay his Super-tax liabilities on the 1st January, 1929. His income was earned in the year ending the 5th of April,
1928, and in order to meet the Super-tax liability he set aside £1,100 which he will pay to the Exchequer on the 1st January, 1929. That man's £10,000 a year ceased on the 5th April, 1928, and during the current year, 1928–29, his income has dropped from £10,000 to £5,000 The question I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to answer is this—What will be the amount of that man's liability to the Exchequer, and what will be the demand note presented to him for Surtax on the 1st January, 1930? Will that demand note again be over £l,100, the amount for which he is liable for Super-tax on 1st January, 1929, or will it drop to half or presumably something less than half that amount? I would be obliged if he could give us a specific answer to that specific question, because on that answer turns the case for the Clause I now support.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: I had not intended to take part in this Debate, but I am very pleased that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is refusing to accept this Clause. About two years ago I happened to be fortunate in the Ballot, and I moved a Motion in the House on the question of the law of inheritance, the inheritance of large fortunes by a minority of the community, and the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) moved an Amendment to my Motion. He was on that occasion pleading on behalf of the rich who had died; to-day he is pleading on behalf of the rich who are living.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: I am pleading on behalf of both.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I think that makes my case stronger still, because I was referring to the fact that he moved an Amendment to a Motion that I brought before the House. On that occasion he was pleading for the rich who are dead; to-day he is pleading on behalf of the rich who are living.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I did not understand.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not like to offend his Friends by pointing out to them how generous he has been to the Super-tax payers since he has been Chancellor.
Four years ago he gave them a present of £40,000,000——

The CHAIRMAN: That would be relevant on the general Clause, but it is not relevant on this new Clause.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: On a point of Order. We are dealing with the question of the Super-tax, and, surely, if hon. Members on the other side can plead on behalf of the Super-tax payers and say that they ought to get some relief, I am in order in pointing out——

The CHAIRMAN: That general question is proper to Clause 13. This particular matter deals with a very peculiar case of death and ceasing to be liable to Super-tax. It is a very limited matter and, really, the whole general question of Income Tax and Super-tax cannot be raised.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his concluding remarks pointed out that he had no money to give away. Am I not in order in pointing out that the Super-tax payers have already been dealt with very generously by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? £40,000,000 in four years——

The CHAIRMAN: These general considerations are not in order here. They will be in order on the Third Reading or on Clause 13, but not on this very limited and technical matter.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Shall I be in order in dealing with the question of the Death Duties?

The CHAIRMAN: No.

Sir R. HORNE: I would be reluctant to say anything adverse to the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he says that he must have the money that is involved in the operation of the Clause we are considering. The claims of the revenue come to be paramount where the services of the State require the revenue which is sought, and, accordingly, I am very reluctant indeed to say anything in opposition to the Chancellor's point of view, but I venture to put forward certain considerations which ought to be taken into account. In the first place, I do not think the revenue of the present year is going to be affected by the operation of this Clause, and, if I understand the matter rightly, it will only be in the following year that any revenue
will begin to accrue from this particular provision. Accordingly, there is a year in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might suitably consider whether this tax must be imposed. The second point is this. My right hon. Friend has said that he requires this sum of money in order to balance the loss which he incurred owing to the change in the imposition of the tax under Schedule E. It is perfectly plain that, as far as this Super-tax element is concerned, this is going to be a recurring tax for a considerable number of years on people now alive, and, accordingly, the incomes to be derived in the aggregate is going to be a very large sum. As far as Schedule E is concerned, I can only see that the Chancellor will lose in one year, the year of the change over.

Mr. CHURCHILL indicated dissent.

Sir R. HORNE: If that is not so, then I am mistaken, but I would like to have some considered opinion as to the amount he expects to lose by the simplification of Schedule E. As I understood the plan, it was that in turning over you were to shoft from one year to another, which involved taking the same year twice as the basis of assessment, instead of the irregular progression of years. As each year is very like another, the only year in which there would be a loss is the year when the change over took place. Of course, if I am wrong in that and the Chancellor of the Exchequer can show that he will lose any sum comparable with the sum he gains from the additional Super-tax, then that argument falls to the ground. I would be interested to hear how much money he expects to lose, and how the loss occurs.
On the general argument I would remind the Committee that the whole of these proceedings rest upon a fallacy which crept into the speech of the learned Attorney-General last year. The basis of this mistake was that a man who paid Super-tax was alleged to pay Super-tax on a year less than he ought. It is a complete error. Ever since it was instituted the tax has been paid on every year. The revenue officials would have been guilty of a great lapse of duty if they had not collected a tax for every year it is due.
The learned Attorney-General made an extraordinary error in law when he said
that the tax was not paid in the year on which the taxpayer entered upon the Super-tax income. It certainly is, and the fallacy arises from the circumstances pointed out so clearly last week by the light hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). He said that, while the tax is based upon the revenue of the previous year, it is paid in the year in which it is due. It is only because the revenue of the year before is taken as a basis that people have got into the fallacy of supposing that, in fact, the tax is postponed for the year. It never has been postponed for a year, if it is going to be asserted that, because you have enjoyed the Super-tax income, therefore you must pay, it is obvious that there were a great number of people who enjoyed Super-tax incomes long before any Super-tax was imposed, and you would be as justified in going back over that spell of years as in imposing this tax. There can be no evasion of the fact that this tax is being charged twice in a particular year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer acknowledge that that is true. If it be the truth, then the country only understands it now for the first time. There is no country in the world where there is less evasion of taxes than in this country. You collect your enormous revenue mainly by the belief of the taxpayer that you are dealing with him justly, and because of the co-operation you get from him. It is unwise to destroy that co-operation by anything which will create a feeling of distrust. I would ask my right hon. Friend again to think over this matter before next year, and see if he cannot devise some better means of simplification, which will not involve an injustice.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated broadly the defence and the justification for the matter of which my hon. Friends has been complaining. I do not propose to repeat the broad defence; I am merely anxious to answer two questions, one put by the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) as to Schedule E, and the other the question as to the hypothetical case raised by the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott). With regard to Schedule E income, the suggestion has been made that there would be £1,000,000 lost to the revenue in one year, but not for each
year in succession. The fact has been overlooked, and is perhaps not generally remembered, that Schedule E income has been a constantly rising income. In 1923 it was £635,000,000; in 1924, £651,000,000; and in 1925, £673,000,000.

Mr. W. THORNE: The rich are getting richer ail the time.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not know where the hon. Member's logic comes from. They are probably not rich people, but poor people. If he would listen he would understand. The point I want to explain to the Committee is that the income of the Schedule E Income Tax payers has been, as shown by these three years, constantly progressing. You may expect, as experience shows that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a right to expect, that that progress will continue. It is obvious that, when he puts back the basis of charge of Schedule E for one year, as the result of the change he loses the advantage of the progressive increase of Schedule E income. It is not merely for one year. If you go back one year it is quite obvious that every successive year you are always one year behind. As long as the Schedule E income is increasing as it has in the past, so long is the Chancellor of the Exchequer losing the additional income. The only criticism that can be made is that there is no security that the Schedule E income will go on increasing in the same way as it has in the years I have given. Whenever the national income begins to shrink, not only of Schedule E, but of all schedules, of course the position will be different, and I do not know what the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be. As long as the income is increasing for Schedule E, the fact is that, by going back one year on the measure of the income, my right hon. Friend does lose in round figures £1,000,000 a year.
The answer, if I may give it much more shortly, to my hon. Friend the Member for York, is that, in the hypothetical case which he put, the income upon which the Super-tax or Surtax payer will have to pay his tax in the second year would be the £5,000, and not the £10,000. May I repeat what I tried to explain a few nights ago, when an Amendment was moved to
Clause 13? There is no year which is taken as the basis of charge in respect of Income Tax twice over. There is technically a year, namely, the year 1928–29, for which Super-tax is charged and Surtax is also charged; but there is no single year the income of which is taken as the measure of liability for either Super-tax or Surtax twice over. In other words, assuming that the income of the gentleman in question in 1927–28 was £10,000, he would pay upon that on the 1st January, 1929. If his income suddenly fell from £10,000 to £5,000 for the year 1928–29, he would then pay Surtax on the 1st January, 1930, on the reduced income of £5,000. That is the answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for York. I do not propose, as I have said, to repeat the general defence of the proposals in question.

Colonel GRETTON: It seems to me, and I think to other Members of the House, that the Attorney-General has destroyed the case of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the question of the Schedule E Income Tax. It now appears that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not going to lose anything at all. All that he is going to lose, according to the explanation given, is some anticipated increase of income in years to come, and I venture to think that by the change he will assure to himself the continuance of the tax for one year longer in case the Schedule E income should commence to fall. There is no case in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to lose any revenue which he has at the present time, but he may lose something, in the years to come, of the increased revenue which the expected increase in Schedule E income allows him to anticipate. If that be so, what becomes of the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he is balancing, against the loss on Schedule E, the imposition of the increased Surtax of which my hon. Friends have complained? They have made out that case unanswerably, and the only justification that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has is that he cannot afford to lose revenue.
I humbly and respectfully represent to him that he can well afford to lose revenue if he is going to impose an injustice or inequity upon any section of the community, however small. I know
that we are speaking to-night for a very small section of the community, who are not likely very seriously to affect the result of a by-election. [Interruption.] They may be comparatively well-to-do, but comparatively well-to-do, and even rich, people are entitled to justice, and it is a very poor attitude for hon. Members above the Gangway to take that people who are rich or well-to-do are not to be treated justly by the House of Commons. I would impress upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there is a great deal more in this matter than he appears to realise, and that he is not going to lose any revenue that he has received in years past or in this present year, but only an anticipated increase, while, if the total income falls, he stands to gain by the change that be is making in the tax under Schedule E.
With regard to the other matter, which is inflicting a very great injustice, and one which is bitterly resented, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) very justly said that this change has not been apprehended by the public. It was put forward in various ways which have not been understood, but, when the persons concerned die, there will be the liability for this tax. This imposition is bitterly resented by a heavily taxed, and often overtaxed section of the community. I do urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give this matter further consideration, because I do not want to be driven into the Lobby against him.

Sir J. DAVIDSON: I do not want to register my vote in favour of this proposed new Clause without giving my reasons for doing so. I feel very strongly on the subject, and I do think that there is some cause for using the term "surreptitious." The public, generally speaking, have felt that this is a surreptitious tax, or, rather, a surreptitious way of imposing a tax. It amounts to a very considerable sum. It is true that it is spread over a generation, but it amounts to something like £50,000,000, and I do think that it warranted more attention being paid to it and more explanation by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year, and, indeed, the moving of a Financial Resolution on the subject at the time. The whole thing seems rather to have been skated over and skirted round without having proper attention given to it.
Further, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) has said, there is a very heavy burden on the direct taxpayer. The present Government has inflicted additional Death Duties, and here is a still further Death Duty, and a very heavy one, which falls most heavily on those who are really incapable of standing it. It cuts right across the whole principle of direct taxation, which is that the burden should fall on those shoulders which are most capable of bearing it. In this case it is doing nothing of the kind; the hardship is falling more on those who are incapable of bearing it. The Labour party have been rather jeering at this proposal, but I would ask them what would be the position supposing that they had a Speaker in the House of Commons who had no means at all, and who died when in office, leaving a wife and children who would have to bear this heavy tax on his estate. The same thing applies to all those who are in receipt of earned incomes and earned incomes only. They may be very considerable, but they cease on the death of the recipient, and the whole weight of this tax falls on his family. I consider that it is a monstrous tax imposed in a very unfortunate way, and I shall be forced to go into the Division Lobby against it.

Major KINDERSLEY: I want just to controvert one point that has been made in justification of this tax. It is said that, because the Super-tax payer missed a year to begin with when Super-tax was imposed, therefore it is just that he should pay the tax now. Suppose that a man in 1910 had just begun to earn a fair income which had only just reached the Super-tax level, and suppose that by the year 1928–29 his income, instead of being only £3,000, is now £20,000 a year. Why should the State, because he did not pay Super-tax on the small income that he had at the beginning, mulct him on the basis of the £20,000 a year? That is absolutely and totally unjust. If the Government really mean that people ought to have paid this tax before, why have not they extracted it from all the people who died before this date? This tax cannot be justified on those grounds, and I feel very strongly that the method by which it is imposed is a mistake. The Super-tax payers as a whole pay their tax willingly.
As has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), there are no people who pay their taxes more willingly than the taxpayers of this country, and it is a great and grave mistake to cause them to have any feeling, such as they have now, that in some sense they have been had. I can assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that feeling, rightly or wrongly, is very prevalent, and I am quite certain that, if it had been understood a

year ago that this amount of £60,000,000 was going to be extracted in course of time from Super-tax payers over and above what they are now paying, there would have been far greater protests at the time. I, therefore, support the Clause.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 59; Noes, 200.

Division No. 230.]
AYES.
[7.26 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Harland, A.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Bird, Sir R. S. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Harney, E. A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harris, Percy A.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Hartington, Marquess of
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Butt, Sir Alfred
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Tomlinson, R. P.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Clarry, Reginald George
Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)
Wells, S. R.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Davies. Mai. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Wiggins, William Martin


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univar.)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Fenby, T. D.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Forrest, W.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Wragg, Herbert


Gates, Percy
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.,



Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Power, Sir John Cecil
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Sir Henry Buckingham and Sir


Hanbury, C.
Remer, J. R.
 William Davison.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner. Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Christie, J. A.
Goff, Sir Park


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Gower, Sir Robert


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Grant, Sir J. A.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. P.
Grotrian, H. Brent


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Groves. T.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Cooper, A, Duff
Grundy, T. W.


Atkinson, C.
Cope, Major Sir William
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cove, W. G.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hacking, Douglas H.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hammersley, S. S.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Harrison, G. J. C.


Bennett, A. J.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Haslam, Henry C.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Bethel. A.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Betterton, Henry B.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Blundell, F. N.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Drewe, C.
Hirst, G. H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Edmondson, Major A, J.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Brass, Captain W.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
England, Colonel A.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Briggs, J. Harold
Erakine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Briscoe, Richard George
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Hume, Sir G. H.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hurst, Gerald B.


Bromfield, William
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Buchan, John
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Fermoy, Lord
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Fielden, E. B.
Jephcott, A. R.


Campbell, E. T.
Finburgh, S.
Kennedy. A. R. (Preston)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Fraser, Captain Ian
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon, Sir Philip


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Gibbins, Joseph
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Chapman, Sir S.
Gillett, George M.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Loder, J. de V.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Radford, E. A.
Sugden, Sir Wilfred


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Ralne, Sir Walter
Sutton, J. E.


Lumley, L. R
Ramsden, E.
Templeton, W. P.


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Rentoul, G. S.
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


MacLaren, Andrew
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Thurtle, Ernest


McLean, Major A.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)
Tinker, John Joseph


Macmillan, Captain H.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Ropner, Major L.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Malone, Major P. B.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Varley, Frank B.


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Salmon, Major I.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


March, S.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Margesson, Captain D.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sandon, Lord
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Savery, S. S.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A.D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Shepperson, E. W.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Newton. Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Skelton, A. N.
Withers, John James


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Womersley, W. J.


Perring, Sir William George
Smithers, Waldron
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Pilcher, G.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.



Pilditch, Sir Philip
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Mr. Penny and Sir Victor Warrender.


Preston, William
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

It being after Half-past Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE AND DERBYSHIRE TRAMWAYS (TROLLEY VEHICLES, Etc.) BILL [Lords] (By Order).

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. OLIVER: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
Our relations with this company, I am glad to say, are extremely happy, but we oppose the Bill because it contains a principle which we believe is not in the best interest of the country, and when the House is familiarised with the Clause to which I and those for whom I speak take exception, I am sure they will feel this is a matter to which they should devote some attention before giving the Bill a Second Reading. It proposes to authorise the pro
vision of a trackless trolley system with the usual overhead electrical equipment. The next thing is to provide motor omnibuses to run in conjunction with their trackless system, and they ask that a monopoly should be granted so long as they provide an adequate service, with two exceptions. The company has a tramway system which runs in two sections, one from Parliament Street, Nottingham, terminating in my own constituency, the other being confined to Ilkeston. The company has controlled the first section since 1913. It runs through several urban districts with a population of something like 48,000. The other section is much smaller, providing for a population of 33,000. We shall, no doubt, hear that when the company purchased the Ilkeston section they conferred on the borough a kind of public service in so far as this small municipality was losing money. They lost to the extent of what amounted to a 5d. rate. When the company purchased the concern in 1916. it began to prosper. They bought it for practically half what it cost. The purchase price was £28,000 and it cost over £52,000, so it is not difficult to see how the company is making it pay where the borough was unsuccessful.
In 1914, the first year of the Nottingham section, the gross takings were £23,293. At the peak, in 1921, it had increased to £54,681. When the company purchased the Ilkeston section, the takings in the first year were £7,000,
and in 1920 they touched £10,470, so that, as a tramway undertaking, up to the advent of the motor omnibuses they did exceptionally well. In 1922 motor omnibuses, not only in this area but throughout the country, were very keen competitors of tramway undertakings, and this company, like others, felt a draught. The whole of its capital is held by the Midland Counties Electrical Supply Company, and in 1920 this holding company floated the Midland General Omnibus Company, Limited. They put on their own motor omnibuses to run in competition with their tramcars. Naturally they attracted customers from their tramcars to their motor omnibuses. It will, no doubt, be said that the tramway company has lost considerable sums of money and that certain steps should be taken whereby they may be safeguarded in the future from any possible competition that may arise. Whilst the attention of the House will be drawn to the losses on the tramcars there will be no reference made to the profits on the omnibuses. I understand the Select Committee of the House of Lords, when the Bill was before them, were informed that no accounts were kept of the takings of the omnibus company.
The difficulty which arises comes from the fact that these urban authorities have issued licences to competing motor omnibus companies, and in consequence this company has felt serious competition from other firms and other companies who have been running omnibuses in this particular locality. In the first place, people formed companies and ran motor omnibuses in this district, providing a good and suitable service and meeting the needs of the district, because in the main the capital was raised in the district, and provided in general a more efficient service than the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Company could possibly hope to provide, because many of their directing heads were not in the vicinity at all, and, in consequence, these small companies were able to make a very successful stride towards establishing themselves. On the other hand, we had this established company, which had been there a very long time, and although we do not want to say a word against them as employers, because they are very good employers and our relations with
them have been of the happiest, yet in fairness, having regard to what they now seek to obtain from Parliament, we must say that when they ran their tram system and their omnibus system, it was irregular, bad in the extreme, and unreliable to such an extent that I myself, who had to use this particular tramway of theirs, could never depend upon catching a train if I had to use their vehicles to get me to the station.
In 1920, when their omnibus company came into operation, they commenced to run omnibuses not only on their own particular stretch of tramway route but on other routes upon which their tramways did not run. We have no objection to that, but they subjected the small companies, who had built up a proper, permanent and regular public system, to the most ruthless price-cutting imaginable, to such an extent that some of the smaller companies who had not £4,000,000 of capital behind them, had to succumb to the price-cutting instituted by this company's omnibuses. While they are complaining about competition running against their tramway system, they have never hesitated to put into operation the most violent competition against omnibus companies running in other districts not associated with their tramway route. Now this company have promoted a private Bill, and the Bill contains a Clause which I shall be very surprised if the House of Commons will ever entertain. So that I shall not be misunderstood or shall in any way incorrectly interpret the Clause, I will read it to the House. It is Clause 37, and it runs:
If and so long as the company provides a service of tramways or trolley vehicles along any specified route and such service adequately meets or together with any service of omnibuses operated by the company adequately meets the requirements of such route it shall not be lawful for any other company or any local authority body or person to run omnibuses along such route or along any other route in competition with such service or services of the company.
To that there are two exceptions, and I will read them to the House, because they are important. The same Clause, in Sub-section (5), says:
Nothing in this Section shall be deemed (A) to restrict the running of any service of omnibuses by any such company
authority body or person along any such route if such omnibuses serve districts beyond the districts in which the specified routes are situate and so long as such omnibuses are not used both for the taking up and setting down on any one journey of passengers on any specified route or any route in competition therewith or (B) to prejudice the renewal by a licensing authority of any license to ply for hire with an omnibus granted prior to the passing of this Act and applicable to any service of omnibuses which was in operation on the thirtieth day of November one thousand nine hundred and twenty-seven and has since that date been continuously in operation.
The House will have observed that that Clause asks that Parliament shall concede to a public company an absolute monopoly of the public highway. Let me show the fallacy of the two exceptions, and, first, of the one which says that they do not object to competing omnibuses when they serve districts beyond the district which this company covers. What is the value of that, in view of the fact that this company covers no less than 15 miles of the King's highway? They suggest that because they do not object if a competing line goes beyond those 15 miles there is no monopoly. They tell you also: "It is not a monopoly because we make provision for the existing users of the road. We do not want to take off the roads people who are now running omnibuses." That is perfectly true. In the original Bill they did want to do so, but they have slightly amended it by permitting those people who are now using the road to use it along with themselves; but no additional licence is to be granted after the passing of this Bill. Now what exactly does that mean? Since this Bill has been before Parliament, their closest competitor, a company running a fine line of omnibuses, has come under their control, so that there will be no further competition from that particular company. Secondly, as to the smaller companies, what will be their fate? Their fate will be the fate of other companies with which this company has run in competition on other routes. They will either (1) buy them up, or (2) crush them with ruthless competition, and then the whole of this 15 or 20 miles of highway of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire will be absolutely at the mercy of this company.
As I have already stated, we do not oppose this company on any pettifogging ground; we oppose them because they
are asking for something which we believe will be absolutely inimical to the best interests of my constituency and of the country if it is extended. However public-spirited a company may be, it would be absolutely wrong for Parliament to delegate to a trading company the powers which this particular company is seeking. Once this Bill receives the Royal Assent it will be absolutely impossible for the local authorities, in whose power it is at the present time to issue licences, to issue any further licences, and in consequence there will be no fear of any development at all. This is an industrial area, running from Nottingham through the great coalfields of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. Naturally, in an area of that description there is at the present time development taking place; new housing schemes have been adopted and houses are being erected by the various urban and municipal authorities. If this competition is curtailed, the whole of that increased business will accrue to this particular company, and with what result? With a result which is inevitable They are not coming to this House seeking powers simply as a luxury; they are coming to this House seeking powers for the benefit of this particular company, and once the Bill is passed, once the power is established and competition is curtailed, undoubtedly prices will be increased as they were increased before we had competition in existence in this area.
Through the courtesy of a very large colliery undertaking in my constituency, I have been presented with a map or plan, which I have here, showing the various mines in the area. One part of this plan shows the mines which are almost derelict, inasmuch as the coal is now being worked out, and therefore it will in the near future be necessary for the colliery companies to transport their workpeople from the areas in which the mines are now being worked out to their newer mines, almost on the same route as that upon which this company seeks a monopoly. What will be the result? No further licences can be issued. If a colliery company desires to run its workmen from one colliery which is worked out to another which is being developed, that is an element of competition which this Bill definitely says must not be allowed. Many of these miners cannot move their
homes from one area to another. Some of them own their own homes, and it is of the utmost importance that the freest and cheapest possible form of transport should be permitted for miners who are unfortunately compelled to live in one area and have to work some miles away in another.
There is another objectionable feature appertaining to this particular Clause. Not only is the company asking for a monopoly on a certain road, but they are asking for a monopoly if another company wishes to take a devious way, coming to some point, on their route, or running on parallel roads. This Bill has been so drafted that there will be no right for any form of competition to come in their way. I ask whether this House can give to this particular company the powers which they are now asking? As I have already explained, in their Tramway Act they obtained certain powers to run tram-cars, but the Tramway Act never granted to the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramway Company a monopoly of the highways. Never has a Tramway Act, the 1870 Act or any subsequent amendment to it, if such there be, ever granted a monopoly of the highway. They have given a company the right to run on the highway, but never have they conceded the right that, they and they alone shall carry passengers in the area over which they run.
8.0 p.m.
When this company came into existence, what happened? They, having in their hands a more modern form of transport, naturally crushed out of existence any competition which was then in existence. There was the old carrier carrying goods on this particular road, there were the old wagonettes meeting the needs of the people. The more modern form of transport came along, and naturally the modern form of transport drove the more antiquated form of transport out of existence. There was no request made then for a monopoly. The old carrier made no request for a monopoly of the highway, and when this company got their tramcars along this road they stole, or rather they took, quite a large amount of traffic from the railway companies, but there was no question then of the railway company asking for a monopoly so that their trade should not
be taken. Unfortunately for the company, their time has come. Their obsolete form of tramways has found in the motor omnibus a very successful competitor, and so the company have looked ahead, and they have said, "We can probably provide motor omnibuses along this route now, but in the process of time there may be a new form of locomotion, which may not be in our control, and if we do not obtain this monopoly to keep off any more successful competitor with a newer idea, we shall share the fate with our new undertaking that we have shared with our old undertaking."
I know the line which will be taken in support of the Bill. It will be said, "We propose to spend £90,000 on a trackless system, and unless we can get security that we are not to be run off the road by competition from motor omnibuses, we are not prepared to spend £90,000." I agree that there is some force in that argument, but nobody has asked the company to spend £90,000 on a trackless system. It is one of their own ideas. The local authorities desire to concede to this company a fair deal, but they want to give them no privileges, and they do not want to give any other company any privilege. They desire to do to all alike, all omnibus proprietors and other forms of transport. I make bold to say that had the Railway Bill which has just been upstairs come to this House with the provisions that are in this Bill, it would not have received the large measure of support which it did receive. Had that Railway Bill said, "So long as we provide your town or village with an adequate service, no other form of competition shall come in our way," this House certainly would not have given it a Second Reading. I am not speaking in any party interest. I am glad to say that behind this opposition is the opposition of every political party in my constituency and in the constituencies in which this system runs. Every chamber of trade, every chamber of commerce, and every tradesmen's association in the district has supported the opposition to this Bill.

Mr. VARLEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so on the broad general principle that this House should never grant a
monopoly to anybody without public safeguards, and so far as I am able to understand the Bill, I do not see that it gives those safeguards. There are other matters upon which this House should be better informed before granting extended powers to this company. I happened to be, in 1913, a member of the Derbyshire County Council at the time when this company took over the tramlines from Nottingham to Ripley. That particular section of their undertaking did not run through the district which I now represent, but I have a very vivid recollection of the trouble we had at that time with this company, which, having acquired Parliamentary powers, promptly proceeded thereafter to do as it liked. Moreover, this particular company was the owner of the tramway undertaking in and around the town of Mansfield. I recollect coming into this House four years ago, when, I hope in all humility, I undertook to point out to the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) the great danger of the continuance of their running their more or less animated timber shacks on wheels in and through Mansfield. He treated me somewhat cavalierly.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent the case. The Mansfield company is quite a separate company, owned by its own shareholders.

Mr. VARLEY: Very probably the hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nail) would be able to draw the distinction, but I cannot.

Sir J. NALL: I happen to be the chairman of both companies, and I can say that there is absolutely no connection between the shareholders of the two companies.

Mr. VARLEY: The explanation accentuates my difficulty in drawing the distinction, and whether or not there be a distinction, the persons involved are the same, on his own admission, but inasmuch as he says that the shareholders are different, and presumably the management of the two companies also is different, I will not pursue that line of argument. What I do say is that if the persons were the same, and the management were the same, and the same spirit
of toleration, or lack of it, animated the company which is now seeking powers that animated the old one, that would be sufficient reason for me to oppose anything which they brought before this House. I do not think I will go into detail, and if hon. Members who are elsewhere than in the House were here, and had read the Bill, I cannot conceive to whatever political party they might belong, that they would favour for one minute the giving of such drastic powers as these to any private company.
There is a third and, in my mind, a more potent reason still against the Bill. I do not know how far the general public has made up its mind that trackless trams are an undisguised blessing. They have been instituted in various parts of the country, and unfortunately for me they have now been instituted along the line on which I live within the City of Nottingham, and certainly I have no cause to wish for any extension of that principle. A perfectly good road was made there less than 12 months ago, and now it is an abomination, and whereas I have no wish to retard the introduction of better facilities for the transit of the population, it is a very moot point whether the ordinary omnibus services as we know them, as distinct from trackless trams, are not far better in the public interest than the trackless trams are. The type of wheels that they have, and that they must have, having regard to the weight of the vehicle, is such that it tears up the road, and the vibration is intense. As I lie in bed, I can have a joy-ride all for nothing, as a result of the trackless trams passing my door. Knowing the route from Nottingham to Ripley and in many parts the contiguity of the houses to the highway, I cannot conceive that if the people on that line of route were consulted they would wish to have the introduction of the trackless trams as against the existing trams. Whatever may be the future of omnibuses, I sincerely hope that this House will pause before it gives to any private company extended powers for the introduction of trackless trams.

Sir HENRY JACKSON: I hope that this House to-night will give a Second Reading to this Bill, and so enable it to go to a Select Committee upstairs, in order that the case both for the promoters and for those who are opposing the Bill
may be fully heard and those safeguards which the House may think are not in the Bill may, if necessary in the public interest, be placed in it. I do not pro pose to follow the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver), who moved the rejection of the Bill, into details. Like the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Varley), I propose to confine myself to one single issue, which, as I understand it, is the issue that is really before the House, and that is the broad principle which is embodied in Clause 37 of this Bill. Much play has been made of the word "monopoly," but what are the facts of the case? Included in this Bill is a provision, which I will read——

Mr. OLIVER: What Clause?

Sir H. JACKSON: It is in Subsection (4) of Clause 37, and it reads as follows:
Any question at any time arising as to whether or not the Company are providing an adequate service along any route or whether there is or would be any such competition shall be determined by the Minister, and the Minister shall have power to make such order thereon as he thinks fit. Any order made by the Minister under this Section shall be final and binding and not subject to appeal to any Court and shall on the application of the Minister be enforceable by writ of mandamus.
I therefore claim that there is an entire disappearance of the word "mono poly." [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If there is any complaint against the efficiency of the service——

Mr. LEE: It is still a monopoly.

Sir H. JACKSON: That depends on what we mean by monopoly; it is a question of definition. If there is included in the Bill that safeguard, that if the service is not satisfactory it is open to an appeal to the Minister, and it is in the province of the Minister to make such an order as to secure a service which shall be in every way satisfactory to the travelling public.

Mr. OLIVER: Is the hon. Member aware that he is quoting Sub-section (4), which refers to the competition of other routes adjacent thereto or running parallel therewith?

Sir H. JACKSON: I am assured by the promoters of the Bill that that is not so.

Mr. OLIVER: But it is there.

Sir H. JACKSON I am assured that it is not so, and that the Sub-section covers the Bill. At any rate, it is clear that we are only asking to give this Bill a Second Beading in order that any safeguard which the House may like should be placed in the Bill by the competent Committee. I have no interest in this company or connection with the district through which it runs. My interest to-night, in rising to support the Bill, is because I have had some experience, as has my colleague the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. B. Smith), whom I am glad to see in the House, in the lessons of London traffic, and it is because of the experience that I at least have learned in that school that I venture to express the hope that that chaos which was existing in London traffic, and which we have tried somewhat to relieve, will not be allowed to be repeated elsewhere. The opponents of this Bill are asking that there, should continue an unrestricted competition—cut-throat competition, if you like—in transport services in this district.

Mr. OLIVER: That is absolutely wrong.

Sir H. JACKSON: At any rate, they are asking that it should be possible for services to be duplicated and, if necessary, triplicated, without any reference to the public needs, and I say that that is unrestricted competition and wasteful.

Mr. OLIVER: What about the licensing authority?

Sir H. JACKSON: The hon. Member knows as well as I that the licensing authority has no powers to restrict the licensing of vehicles. What was the condition in London in consequence of this unrestricted competition? We found that we had starved tramway services. We found congested roads. We found that we had a heavy toll of accidents. We found acute overcrowding leading to enormous developments in the demand for proper transport. In order to safeguard the position, the London Traffic Act, 1924, was passed. What has that Traffic Act done? In Section 7 of that Act this House definitely established the very principle for which this company have asked to-night. It was decided that in certain streets where the service was adequate and efficient, no more omnibuses should be allowed to run. It was
also decided that if an omnibus did run, it should run according to a very definite schedule, and run nowhere else.

Mr. OLIVER: That is under a committee.

Sir H. JACKSON: It is done by order of the Minister on the advice of a committee, carrying out the provisions of the Act of Parliament.

Mr. OLIVER: That is very different from this Bill.

Sir H. JACKSON: I am only stating the principle. That was the principle which this House embodied in the Traffic Act of 1924, and it is precisely that principle and no other principle which this company is asking to be placed in this Bill, namely, that as long as they provide a service which is adequate to the needs of the people and as long as the Minister is satisfied that a service is being provided according to those needs they are entitled to protection.

Mr. VARLEY: What is the position of the present operators under this Bill? Are they to be thrown off the road?

Sir H. JACKSON: I understand that the present operators are entitled to remain on the road and to continue as at present. There will be no interference, as I understand it, with their operations or their services. They will simply continue as they do at present. That is the principle. The House is definitely committed to this principle in London, and I venture to say that in London—and I am sure my good colleague sitting on the Front Opposition Bench will agree—it has been singularly successful. The chaos which existed—the crowded streets, the useless wear and tear of the highways, giving to the highway authorities an increasing burden—has, at any rate, been reduced. Our policy now is not so much to prevent more omnibuses being run but rather to remove what is unnecessary and needless and so give protection to existing Transport undertakings and so encourage them to embark on further developments. The London story, if it is worth anything at all to the rest of the country, is, that if any transport authority, be it an omnibus company or be it a tramway company, or be it the suburban railway of a great main line, be it an electric
or underground railway, if the transport authority is giving a service which is adequate to the needs of the community, they are entitled to protection against competition which can give the public no advantage, which can only bring disaster to the transport people themselves.
That is the principle we are discussing to-night. There is nothing else in the picture at all. That is the simple issue, and I venture to hope that the House on this vital issue will be guided by the overwhelming success of the same principle which has been applied to London. After all, this is not the end of our traffic problem. It is merely a step along that line of co-ordination of all services, which, we believe, is the only solution of this problem. We are convinced that it is not in unrestricted competition, that it is not in monopoly, but rather in that halfway house by means of which existing services can be correlated that the public can get the services which they demand. Because of the lessons that I have learnt in the London school, and because of its undoubted success—of that there is no question in any part of the House or in any part of greater London—I hope the House will, at any rate, approve the principle to-night and send this Bill to a Select Committee which can place any further safeguards in the Bill which are necessary.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I promise the House that I will not detain it for any great length, because I know that the time taken up now will have to be found out of our sleeping time after 12 o'clock tonight. [Interruption.] If we are delayed too long over this Bill, we shall have to spend the time in the small hours in a discussion on the Finance Bill. I, really, think that possibly on both sides of the House there has been rather a tendency to exaggerate the importance of Clause 37 of this Bill. I submit that it is not a new principle which is embodied in Clause 37. It has been—I must make it clear to the House—embodied in legislation with regard to the City of Oxford. It has been passed, without any discussion in this House this year, in the Greenock Bill. So that as far as principles are concerned, we are not discussing something which is quite new, but possibly a departure from what has been
not the invariable practice, but the usual practice. I think I am not putting it unfairly.

Mr. VARLEY: Were these powers given to private companies?

Colonel ASHLEY: Greenock came as a private company, and Oxford came as a private company.

Mr. LEE: Did the local authorities agree?

Colonel ASHLEY: I really cannot tell the hon. Member exactly the whole details of all these cases, but I can say that to the best of my recollection they were both private companies. After all, whether they are private companies or not, I am sufficiently an individualist to think that you should not debar a private company because it is a private company from sharing in certain privileges which are given to municipalities, provided that that private company carries out its obligations and gives a good service to the community. One of the duties which I have to perform is to look after the interests of municipalities in their own area when they are challenged as to their road transport systems by outside private enterprises. If they refuse to allow private competition with their own municipal tramways it is my duty, if there is an appeal made to me, to decide whether they are justified in refusing. I, personally, always take into consideration whether the municipal tramway is giving an adequate service, and, if it is giving an adequate service, it weighs very much with me in favour of my coming down on the side of protecting the municipal tramways.
In the same way, if the duty is put upon me to decide if an adequate service is being given by this private company, I cannot see why I should not take into consideration the activities of the company and the efficiency of the company, and if the service is efficient, I do not see why it should be necessary to have an undue number of vehicles on the road. Wasteful competition, surely, I should think all hon. Members would desire to see eliminated. We should keep private enterprise and municipal enterprise out of our minds, and decide what is best in the interests of the community. If we do that, then
surely Clause 37, although I am not saying it is a perfect Clause, might be accepted. It says that if this company gives an efficient service on certain routes, and if the Minister, in the exercise of his discretion and doing his best to come to a right decision, says that they are giving an efficient service, other people should be debarred from running services in competition, just as has been done in the case of municipal services.

Mr. OLIVER: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the report issued by his own Department which says, referring to this proposal in Clause 37:
It is not the practice of Parliament to allow Clauses of this nature, and the Minister recommends that the Clause be disallowed.

Colonel ASHLEY: I agree that that was what was sent up to another place. Although it is not the invariable practice of Parliament the fact remains that exception has been made to the practice. Cannot we make changes in our procedure? We must march with the times. The trouble that I find with hon. Members opposite is that they do not march with the times, and make changes where necessary. In all seriousness, I say that this Clause, be it good or bad, has been put in by another place after due consideration. It now comes down to this House for Second Reading. Some hon. Members may not like the Clause and other hon. Members may be very much in favour of it. It is desirable, in the interests of the company and of the public, that the Bill should be given a Second Reading and be allowed to go upstairs to the Committee. In the ordinary course the Committee will deal with it, and if when it comes back to us it has been altered, we shall have a Report stage, and hon. Members opposite can say: "The Committee has not done what we like, and we will press the matter to a Division in regard to Clause 37." To reject the Bill on Second Reading because there is in it a Clause which they do not like very much, without having heard what the Committee upstairs would say, and considering that they can have a Report stage and Third Reading, is against public policy. I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading and allow it to go upstairs, and come back to us later on.

Mr. OLIVER: Has the right hon. Gentleman any proposition to make to the House or any recommendation to make to the Committee in regard to this Clause, as he has done on other occasions?

Colonel ASHLEY: If the House gives a Second Reading to the Bill, my recommendation will go to the Committee upstairs when the Bill goes before the Committee.

Mr. JOHN BAKER: Unless I hear some better arguments than I have heard from the Minister of Transport, I hope the matter will be pressed to a Division, and I shall vote for the Amendment. I have sat on Committees upstairs and I know that one of the strongest arguments used for getting a Bill through Committee is that it has passed its First Reading and its Second Reading and that the House has assented to the principle of the Bill. This Clause is a matter of principle. There are big Bills before this House and before Joint Committees where municipalities are asking for these powers which the Minister thinks ought to be given to this private company. Those municipalities are not being treated quite so generously as we are asked to treat this private company. From what we have heard from the Mover of the Amendment, the people who practised competition until they had killed their opponents, now say: "Do not let us have any wasteful competition." Why do not they think about the companies which they have wiped off the face of the earth, when they are talking like that?
I do not think it is the proper thing to give a small group of the community such powers and privileges as this Bill seeks to confer upon this particular company. I have not heard anything quoted by the other side giving municipalities rights other than the right to appeal to a Minister who believes in private enterprise, and who would be bound to be influenced by his own particular belief if an appeal came before him, after this Bill goes through, and some municipalities asked for these powers. The power should not be left in the hands of a single individual—that is no reflection upon the present Minister of Transport, or upon his views—to make it impossible for a huge district to get a proper transport service, because that is what this Clause would mean. What will happen if this
Clause goes through? For years, the district may be badly served, and at the end of a period, which would not be a short one, there might be sufficient public spirit in the district to say, "We ought to put an end to this thing. Let us form a new company and appeal to the Minister of Transport." Those appellants would know that they run the risk not only of losing the money with which they had formed the company, but the costs of the appeal to the Minister or to this House."
Those who are interested in the work of this House know that every week whilst the House is sitting there are thousands of pounds of municipal money being spent in defending the interests of the ratepayers in areas which are being attacked by people trying to get privileges from this House, with no adequate return for the municipality. Thousands of pounds every week are going in skilled advice for the protection of the municipalities, and here we have a calm proposal to give a monopoly in a considerable area of two counties, to a private company. I wonder how the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) will vote in regard to the plea of the existing transport companies in relation to the railways. The railways are asking powers from this House, and I voted for them having that power, to run road services, because I believe that is in the interests of transport. I wonder how hon. Members who are supporting this Bill will vote when the Railway Bills come before this House, and it is pointed out that all over the country there are municipalities running efficient road services. They will not then say that is sufficient for the railway companies to appeal to the Minister. They will take the view that these powers should go into the Railway Bills. They are being guided, not by the public good, not by the question of efficient transport, but by some pre-conceived idea as to what is the best to do in every circumstance in relation not only to this but every means of producing and distributing wealth. I hope that the Amendment will be carried.

Mr. LEE: I intervened when the Minister of Transport was referring to the Greenock and Oxford Bills, and I asked him whether the local authorities of Greenock and Oxford opposed or supported those Bills.

Colonel ASHLEY: I cannot remember. The Oxford Bill was in 1914.

Mr. LEE: The Minister cannot be expected to remember all the details. I put that question for the purpose of saying that all the authorities in the district affected by this Bill are opposing the Bill, from the local authorities to the county councils. Therefore, we stand to-night with the authority of all these councils behind us, in opposing this particular Clause. If we are to judge of the adequate service which this company is likely to provide in the future by the service they have provided in the past, some of us cannot attach much credence to their promises. This service has been running for a long time. I am astonished that the people in the district have stood it so long, because it is a disgrace to the company. The hon. Member who spoke from his experience of London did not teach us anything. London is London, and the country is the country. The experience of London does

not help much in a country district like this; and the London Traffic Bill did not provide anything like what is provided for in this particular Clause. The promoters, I know, tell us that they are not asking for a monopoly, but I do not know any other word which will describe the powers for which they are asking in this Bill. They say that they do not want anyone else to run a service except those who are running a service at the moment, but they have bought out the largest company, and, if they can buy out the largest, they can also buy out the smallest, and by and by we shall have one company running over this route on which there is scarcely any railway competition at all. The people in the district are not asking for this service, and every local authority in the neighbourhood is opposed to it.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 192 Noes, 118.

Division No. 231.]
AYES.
[8.40 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whitsh'n)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hume, Sir G. H.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hurd, Percy A.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hurst, Gerald B.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Atkinson, C.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Iveagh, Countess of


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Crewe, C.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Csn'l)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Jephcott. A. R.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Edwards. J. Hugh (Accrington)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Bennett A. J.
England, Colonel A.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Bethel, A.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset. Weston-s.-M.)
Knox, Sir Alfred


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Fade, Sir Bertram G.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Fielden, E. B.
Laugher, Lewis


Bowyer. Captain G. E. W.
Forrest. W.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vero


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Lynn, Sir Robert J.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Galbraith, J. F. W.
McLean, Major A.


Briggs, J. Harold
Gates, Percy
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Brittain, Sir Harry
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Guff, Sir Park
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Buchan, John
Gower, Sir Robert
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Buckingham, Sir H.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Margesson, Captain D.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of Lender
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Burman, J. B.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Meyer, Sir Frank


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hanbury, C.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Campbell, E. T.
Harland, A.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hartington, Marquess of
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Chapman, Sir S.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Haslam, Henry C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Nuttall, Ellis


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Henri, Sir Sydney f-t
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Couper, J. B.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
O'Neill. Major Rt. Hon. H.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Holbrook. Sir Arthur Richard
Pennefather, Sir John


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Holt, Captain H. P.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Perring, Sir William George


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Philipson, Mabel


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Pilcher, G.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Templeton, W. P.


Preston, William
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Price, Major C. W. M.
Savery, S. S.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Radford, E. A.
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Raine, Sir Walter
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Ramsden, E.
Shaw, Lt.-Col, A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Rees, Sir Beddoe
Shepperson, E. W.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Remer, J. R.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Rentoul, G. S.
Smithers, Waldron
Wells, S. R.


Rice, Sir Frederick
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stratford)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ropner, Major L.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Withers, John James


Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Womersley, W. J.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Rye, F. G.
Storry-Deans, R.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Salmon, Major I.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.



Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sandeman, N. Stewart
Tasker, R. Inigo.
Sir Thomas Watts and Mr. Clarry


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardle, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Ritson, J.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayday, Arthur
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Ammon, Charles George
Hayes, John Henry
Robinson. W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, G. H.
Scrymgeour, E.


Barnes, A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sexton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. Huddersfield
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bromfield, William
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shinwell, E.


Bromley, J.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sitch, Charles H.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smillie, Robert


Cape, Thomas
Kelly, W. T.
Snell, Harry


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cluse, W. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Stamford, T. W.


Connolly, M.
Lansbury, George
Stephen, Campbell


Cove, W. G.
Lawrence, Susan
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lawson, John James
Sutton, J. E.


Dalton, Hugh
Lee, F.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lindley, F. W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Dennison, R.
Lowth, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Dunnico, H.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Tomlinson, R. P.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lunn, William
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Fenby, T. D.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gardner, J. P.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wellock, Wilfred


Gibbins, Joseph
March, S.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gillett, George M.
Maxton, James
Whiteley. W.


Gosling, Harry
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wiggins, William Martin


Greenall, T.
Montague, Frederick
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Murnin, H.
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Naylor, T. E
Wragg, Herbert


Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wright, W.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ponsonby, Arthur



Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Varley and Mr. Oliver.


Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

FINANCE BILL

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

NEW CLAUSE.—(Relief to continuous Super-tax payers.)

(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section forty-two of the Finance Act, 1927, where an assessment has been made of Surtax on any taxpayer who has died before
the date on which payment has become due, such assessment shall be discharged upon proof by the executors that the deceased had been continuously assessed for Super-tax or Surtax since the date of the taxpayer's liability arose under the Finance Acts, 1909, 1914, 1918, 1920.

(2) The Special Commissioners shall, on the application of the executors of the deceased person upon whom a claim for Surtax has been made, furnish to the executors a certificate showing the period for which the deceased was liable and had discharged his liability.—[Sir H. Buckingham.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir H. BUCKINGHAM: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
It has generally been accepted in the Debates which we have had on the Surtax question that all Surtax payers are in the same category, but I shall endeavour to prove to the Committee that that is not so and that one section, at any rate, of Surtax payers are very much imposed upon by the new taxation. I use the term "imposed upon" in the sense that they will ultimately have to pay more taxation than they are liable for and that, I think, is a, proposition which Members of all parties will agree is very unjust from the point of view of the taxpayer whether he be rich or poor. For the sake of brevity and clarity I will ask the Committee to allow me to read a statement which I have written showing exactly how this payment will be made. Payers of Surtax must be divided into two distinct groups whereas in our discussions upon this matter it has generally been assumed that they all belong to the same category. The two groups are first, those who grow into Surtax payers, that is to say those whose incomes gradually increase until they become Surtax payers and, secondly, those who have been Super-tax payers from 1909 when the Super-tax was first imposed and who have been continuous Super-tax payers from that time onwards but who now become Surtax payers. This second group also includes those who first became liable to Surer-tax in 1914, 1918 and 1920 when the minimum amount of income liable to Super-tax was altered but for the sake of brevity I will refer to these four sections of Super-tax payers as original Super-tax payers.
The first group of Surtax payers will, under the Surtax Regulations, pay, or their executors, will pay, Surtax upon the exact amount of Surtax income for which they have been liable, whereas hitherto Super-tax payers in this category, or their executors have paid upon one year's less Super-tax income than they have enjoyed. On the other hand, original Super-tax payers or their executors have always paid upon the exact number of years' Super-tax they have enjoyed. This difference comes about owing to the fact that original Super-tax payers paid tax upon the in-
come of the year previous to the year in which they first became liable, whereas the Super-tax payer who has grown into Super-tax commenced to pay tax upon the income of the year in which he first became liable. The result, therefore, of the imposition of Surtax Regulations upon original Super-tax payers, is that these tax-payers, or their executors, will pay upon one more year's Super-tax income than the number of years for which they have been liable, owing to the fact that, having paid upon the income of the year previous to the one in which they first became liable, there will now be added the tax upon the income of the year in which they die. Thus if you take the case of an original Super-tax payer who still remains a Surtax payer, who may die upon the 5th May, 1930, it will be found that he will pay upon 22 years one month's income, although he has only been subject to liability for 21 years and one month.
That statement, I think, is accurate and I hope it puts the question fairly before the Committee. I certainly hope that it proves that the original Super-tax payer now the Surtax payer, will have to pay one year's more tax compared with the number of years for which he is liable. If that be so and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to admit it how can the right hon. Gentle-man reconcile that circumstance with a refusal to accept the New Clause which I now propose. In a statement made by the ex-Attorney-General last year—and we must remember that it was upon his statement that the House of Commons accepted these taxes—he said:
Surtax is going to be levied in every case for exactly the number of years for which a person is liable to pay it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June, 1927; col. 751, Vol. 208.]
I hope I have satisfied the Committee that, having regard to the Regulaions in regard to Surtax which now exist, the ex-Attorney-General quite unintentionally deceived the House of Commons when he stated that no one would pay tax upon any year's income for which he was not liable. It is possible that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may argue that the income of 1908, the year previous to the imposition of the Super-tax, was liable to taxation. If that be the case, I ask him whether he disagrees with the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman,
the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), a Member whose knowledge of the law in these matters is unrivalled, when he said:
It is, therefore, quite inaccurate to say that Super-tax is charged in respect of the Income Tax of a previous year. It is not. It is charged in respect of the income of the year of charge."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1928; col. 612, Vol. 219.]
I wish the right hon. Gentleman were here so that the Chancellor might cross swords with him if he proposed to disagree with him. The Chancellor either has to say that the right hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong in the opinion which he expressed, or he must admit that the original Super-tax payer will, if the Surtax Regulations pass the House, pay upon one more year's income than the number of years for which he has been liable for the tax.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. Friend has invited me to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) is wrong. I would not hesitate for a moment to do that if I thought he was wrong, and I never did it more frequently than when we were colleagues of the same Government. Let us see what is the proposal of my hon. Friend. Really, I am a little surprised that with his immense knowledge of the Income Tax he should have allowed himself—in fact, he has allowed himself by his immense knowledge—to be drawn into what most people will regard as a very absurd fallacy. The Committee has just decided by a very large majority that the procedure in regard to Super-tax is to be assimilated to the procedure which has long been adopted in regard to Income Tax. I do not disguise the fact that hard cases might arise. There is the case of a man who all his life hap struggled, and at the end of his life produces, say, his first successful book, or invention, or has his first good year of business, and then he dies, and the high income which he made in that year undoubtedly becomes, through the taxation upon it, a charge of a serious character on those he leaves behind. But the House, on the advice of the Government, has rightly decided that that hardship is no more a hardship than what individual taxpayers below the Super-tax level have always endured in similar circumstances. On these grounds, the House has accepted the Government's
proposal. My hon. Friend, with very fine argument and logic, arrives at the conclusion that, while it is quite all right that the estate of a man who, only in the last year of his life managed to reach the Super-tax income level, should have to pay the outstanding tax, as the House has decided, that of a man who for 20 years has enjoyed a Super-tax income should be given some special privilege. No proposition could be more removed from reason in the result, however logical the argument may have been to arrive at it. Why should a man who for 20 years has enjoyed a Super-tax income, be treated better than the man who, at the end of his life, has at length arrived at the Elysian fields of Super-tax? Why should you in broad justice treat the man who for 20 years has had a Super-tax income, better than the man who has had to struggle with fortune and only in the last year of his life has reached a Super-tax income? I have paid this objectionable impost since its introduction, and the man who has paid it for 20 years ought to be accustomed to make provision for it as far as he can, and as far as the wickedness of the Treasury allows, every year. But to say that such a man who has had this opportunity and neglected it, after having enjoyed a Super-tax income for 20 years, should lie treated better than the man who in the last year of his life has arrived at it, is a proposition which the Committee cannot entertain, and which if it did entertain, would introduce a ridiculous element into the whole theory of Super-tax.

Sir H. BUCKINGHAM: In view of the apparent inability of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to understand the Clause, and the total disregard which he has paid to the very vital question of arithmetic, I do not think that it is fair to him to ask the Committee to divide on this Clause, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Deduction for Income Tax purposes in respect of obsolete machinery.)

Schedule D of the First Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1918, shall be amended by
substituting the following rule for Rule 7 applicable to Cases I. and II. of the said Schedule D.
In estimating the profits or gains of any trade, manufacture, adventure, or concern in the nature of trade chargeable under this Schedule there shall be allowed to be deducted as expenses incurred in any year an amount equivalent to the original cost of any plant or machinery which has been withdrawn from use and removed in that year after deducting from that cost the total amount of any allowances which have at any time been made in estimating profits or gains as aforesaid on account of the wear and tear of that plant and machinery, and any sum realised by the sale of that machinery or plant. But no deduction shall be made for any plant which has been removed as the result of a trade, manufacture, adventure, or concern as aforesaid having been discontinued by the person or body of persons chargeable with tax in respect thereof.—[Sir E. Iliffe.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir EDWARD ILIFFE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I would point out to the House and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this Clause has nothing to do with the more complicated question of wasting assets. It is a proposal which if conceded might be well regarded as a self-contained act of justice. Its acceptance will not in any way prejudice the broader question of wasting assets. This Clause is designed to enable manufacturers to obtain adequate allowances for Income Tax purposes in respect of machinery which has been scrapped. The matter was considered by the Royal Commission on Income Tax in 1920, and I would like to read one paragraph from the Report of the Committee:
If, owing to obsolescence, a certain machine is thrown out and replaced by a more modern machine before the aggregate allowances for depreciation have reduced its original cost to scrap value, a further allowance is granted owing to the difference between (a) the value to which it has been written down for Income Tax purposes and, (b) its scrap value. This allowance for obsolescence was in practice given as far back as 1897 but did not receive formal legislative authority until 1918. At present the obsolescence allowance can be granted only when the obsolete plant or machinery is replaced, but we recommend that it should be given in the case of machinery or plant disused for any reason, whether replaced or not, except where the disuse is the result of the discontinuance of a business, when it cannot properly be distinguished from the general capital loss entailed by cessation.
The Clause which I am now proposing follows exactly the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Rule 7 as it stands to-day permits allowances for obsolescence, but the defect of the rule is that the machinery in each case must be replaced, and it is not always necessary to replace obsolete machinery. I will give two examples. We have, first of all, the case of a factory which has replaced its engines and boiler by electric power obtained from the municipal corporation. In a case of that kind an inspector quite recently refused to allow the unwritten down value of the engine and boiler for Income Tax purposes. Then we have the case of electricity supply companies generally. Small stations to-day are scrapping their plant in order to take their current in bulk from electric supply stations, and the Inland Revenue have refused allowances in respect of the plant scrapped in that way. Unless the law is altered so that the loss on obsolete machinery is a charge on trade manufacturers will taxed on amounts in excess of the profits they have earned. I appeal to the Chancellor to help the producer who desires to produce economically and encourage him to scrap his obsolete machinery. As I said at the beginning, I regard this Clause as a simple act of justice and I hope the Chancellor, even if he is not able to give way at the moment, will consider this matter before the Report stage and will then be able to grant this concession.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: The hon. Member when moving this Clause said this matter could not be regarded as one concerned with wasting assets, but then proceeded to quote from paragraph 215 of the Royal Commission's Report on Income Tax, which dealt with wasting assets, and so I am in a difficulty to know on which foot he stands.

Sir E. ILIFFE: The particular paragraph which I quoted deals with obsolescence. The Commissioners were dealing with the broader question of wasting assets, but this particular paragraph only deals with the question of obsolescence.

Mr. SAMUEL: I do not read it in that way, but I accept my hon. Friend's interpretation.
The present Income Tax law enables manufacturers for Income Tax purposes to claim that they have spent so much as is equivalent to the cost of the machinery replaced, after deducting allowances made for wear and tear and any sum realised by the sale of the machinery. The object of my hon. Friend's Clause is to substitute for this allowance an allowance by reference to the cost of any machinery which is so withdrawn from use, after deducting wear and tear and allowances and any sum realised by the sale of it, whether such machinery is replaced or not. I am sorry to say I cannot accept his Clause. I will draw his attention to another section in the Report of the Royal Commission on Income Tax which may, perhaps, give the reason why, I think, he should not press this matter at all. The subject of wasting assets was very fully discussed in the Royal Commission's Report and certain recommendations of a limited scope were made. It has not yet been found possible by the Government to give effect to those recommendations, and unless and until the time comes when it is possible to deal with the matter in all its aspects, it will be very undesirable, even for those for whom my hon. Friend speaks, the manufacturing interests of the country, to pick out for special treatment the recommendation in paragraph 215 which he quoted with regard to plant or machinery which is not replaced. To deal piecemeal with the matter will, I think, be highly undesirable and highly injudicious, and for that reason I would ask him not to press this Clause.

Sir E. ILIFFE: In view of the statement made by the Financial Secretary I do not propose to press this Clause. I hope he will read my speech very carefully and I hope the Government will give it consideration. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

There being no Members willing to act as Tellers for the Ayes the DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN declared that the Noes had it.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 21 of Finance Act, 1922, 12 and 13, Geo. V., c. 17.)

(1) Any company to which Section twenty-one of the Finance Act, 1922, applies, may at any time after the general meeting at which the accounts of the company made up for any year or other period are adopted, forward to the Special Commissioners for their consideration a copy of the said accounts, together with a copy of the report, if any, of the directors for that year or period, and such further information, if any, as it may think fit, and the Special Commissioners shall, subject to the provisions of this Section, on receiving the said accounts and other documents, if any, proceed to consider the position of the company in relation to the said Section twenty-one.

(2) The Special Commissioners may as soon as reasonably may be, but not later than twenty-eight days after the receipt of the said accounts and other documents, if any, call upon the company to furnish to them within twenty-eight days, or such extended period as they may subsequently allow, such further particulars as they may reasonably require.

Provided that if the particulars so required are not furnished to the Commissioners within the period or extended period allowed for the purpose they may proceed under this Section upon the information before them.

(3) Where a company has under Subsection (1) of this Section forwarded to the Special Commissioners the accounts of the company for any year or other period, whether with or without any other documents, the following provisions shall have effect:—

(a) unless within three months after the receipt of the said accounts and other documents, or, if further particulars have been required as aforesaid, within three months after the receipt of those particulars, or the expiration of the period within which those particulars are to be furnished, as the case may be, the Special Commissioners intimate to the company their intention to take further action in the case of the company under the said Section twenty-one in respect of that year or other period, the power of the Commissioners to take any such further action in respect of that year or other period shall absolutely cease and determine; and
(b) notwithstanding that the Special Commissioners have given such an intimation as aforesaid, they shall not after the expiration of six months from the-date of the intimation have power in relation to that company to issue a notice-under paragraph (4) of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1922, with respect to that year or period, or, unless such a notice has been issued before the expiration of the said period of six months, to give a direction in relation to the company under Sub-section (1) of Section
1281
twenty-one of the said Act.—[Sir F. Iliffe.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir E. ILIFFE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
When the Finance Act of 1927 was being debated in this House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out that this particular section of the Finance Act would not become operative until this year, and he said that meantime he was prepared to consider any better methods which industry might devise to circumvent the Super-tax evader without disturbing the normal course of business. Three of the leading commercial associations in this country decided to take up this offer. They were the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Federation of British Industry, and the Shipowners Parliamentary Committee. They formed a joint committee to examine this problem, and they did me the honour of appointing me as Chairman of that Committee. They went into the matter very thoroughly indeed and came to the conclusion that there were three main objections to the present legislation all of which tended to encourage directors to over-distribute their profits at a time when it was essential if our export trade was to be extended and our unemployed to be absorbed that companies should be encouraged to leave as much of their profit as possible in industry.
Three main objections were raised. First of all, there was the uncertainty which must exist in the minds of the directors of honestly conducted companies as to the amount of profits it is legitimate to reserve each year for the future development of the business. The second objection was the insecurity due to the fact that at any time in the future the Inland Revenue Department may demand Super-tax on profits reserved five or six years back. Thirdly, the Super-tax, when levied, is payable upon the whole of the profits, and not merely on the portion deemed to be unreasonably withheld. The Committee devised a scheme which in their opinion covered these points, and which they felt would tend to restore the confidence now lacking. This scheme was submitted to the Chancellor of the. Exchequer, but I do not propose to trouble the Committee
with the details of that scheme. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was unable to accept the scheme. He told us that we were under an entire misapprehension as to the object and effect of the Section to which we objected, and he stated that his intention was to deal only with the avoidance of Super-tax by transactions and arrangements which were outside the course of legitimate and ordinary business, and that the Clauses referred to bore no relation to the reserves made by any company in pursuance of a thrifty, far-sighted, straightforward business policy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer further made it clear that under his proposals no trader need have any misgivings whatever if he reserved the whole of his profits provided that they were really required for the maintenance and development of his business. At the same time, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he would be willing to consider some provision which would enable companies to clear their accounts year by year and so avoid any possibility of retrospective assessment to Super-tax.
After giving the matter careful consideration, the joint committee to which I have alluded, decided to accept the Chancellor of the Exchequer's assurance and that is the reason why I am confining myself to this one Amendment. I must say that I could have wished that the assurances given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been embodied in the Act itself. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer may not always occupy his present position, and some future Chancellor of the Exchequer might take a narrower view. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepts this Amendment, I shall be grateful to him, but my gratitude would have been very much greater if his assurances had been recoiled in the Act itself. If we find in the future that these Acts are not interpreted in accordance with the assurances given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I am sure that will not happen in the time of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—we shall feel obliged to move Amendments to bring the Act more in accordance with the assurances which have been given by the right hon. Gentleman. This Amendment enables companies to know exactly how they stand from year to year, and it
avoids the uncertainty of retrospective legislation.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Committee will recollect the discussions which took place on the Finance Act last year. I have always said throughout the discussions on this subject that the new Clauses intended to check evasion would in no respect hamper the bona fide honest trader who wished to carry a proportion of his profits to reserve for the necessary development of his business. I am still of that opinion, but I must admit that a great deal of misunderstanding, misapprehension and anxiety has been caused not so much by the Clauses in the Finance Bill of last year, but by the discussion which has taken place in the meantime. At any rate, I am quite clear that although there has been a certain appreciable and even serious measure of anxiety on this question, the Clauses to which objection has been taken have not been any deterrent upon honest businesses carrying money to reserve in a proper proportion. After all, the accumulation of reserves is an eminently important factor in businesses. We have aimed at those who have sought to evade taxation and who have made a business of evasion. It is very important in dealing with this matter that we should not cause unnecessary despondency and alarm throughout the great business world of Britain where industries are doing none too well at the present time.
When this matter was before us last year I said I should be glad to receive alternative suggestions which would achieve the purpose in view, and, as a result of that, a Committee was formed which made a great many investigations, and in the end made certain proposals. I was not able to accept the bulk of the proposals, but as the result of these discussions I thought it would be only right to accept one of the provisions. The object of this one provision is simply to limit the uncertainty, and it in no way affects the validity or effectiveness of the Clause of last year, but it does relieve the uncertainty. It sets a time limit to the date beyond which the past history of any firm cannot be called into question. What is the provision? It is that it shall be open to a company to submit its accounts to the Special Commissioners soon after the end of its trading
year and the declaration of its dividend, if any. The Special Commissioners will then have a limited time only in which to proceed under the Section. A company tenders its accounts for examination, and the Commissioners say whether they take any exception to the procedure of the company or not. If they do not take any steps within that time, then for that year, and for that year only, the matter lapses. The accounts are submitted, and the company says: "This is what we are doing. Have you any grounds for taking exception?" If no exception is taken, that year passes out and cannot again be overhauled.
Of course, if the Commissioners on examining the accounts find that there is ground for believing that sums are unreasonably being carried to reserve, and not for building up the business or for the legitimate purposes, but for the purpose of evading the tax, then they can proceed as stated by what attracted wide attention last year as Clauses 29 and 30. In any case, the rights of the company are preserved in respect of appeal and examination by an impartial body—the board of referees. In this way the risk of the company being faced with Super-tax charges for several past years will be avoided if the company likes to take the precaution of making a statement of its accounts, the element of uncertainty that overhangs the business world is removed without any detriment to the interests of the revenue. I, therefore, propose to accept the new Clause in the form in which it has been moved by my hon. Friend as a result of long and careful discussion with the Revenue officials.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I rise only to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer one question. This Clause is based on a great deal of discussion in the House last year, and also at the time of the earlier legislation. As I understand the proposal, it amounts to a kind of agreeable arrangement between the companies and the Special Commissioners. The Clause clearly lays down the dates within which the accounts are to be lodged and inquiries made. The question I should like to ask the Chancellor is this. As we are here dealing with the problem of evasion, let us assume that there are cases in which later on, outside these dates, information comes to hand or is available as to an inadequate distribu-
tion. Does this Clause mean that you will have abandoned all your rights, on the emergence of information of this kind, to make an inquiry and to take the steps which are contemplated in the legislation of 1921 as amended by the Section of the Act of 1927? If so, the House of Commons should clearly understand that it is seriously undermining in this Clause the power to review for the purpose of preventing evasion. I should have thought this is hardly any part of the purpose of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as indeed it would be inconsistent with what the Royal Commission on Income Tax did find in 1919.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot think it possible that this Clause, which was drafted after so much consultation, could have reference to anything but a bona fide statement of procedure and bona fide transactions. Of course, if false statements were presented which were not in accordance with the real facts, obviously the saving grace of this Clause would not apply. That is the impression which I strongly have, and I will make sure that this is the intention of the Clause. I could not possibly pronounce on a matter of law at a moment's notice, but it is the intention of the promoters that nothing which is not bona fide should in any way be safeguarded by the Clause.

Mr. GRAHAM: May I ask whether, in order to be sure on that point, the Chancellor will between now and the Report stage inquire as to whether the effect of these words would, so to speak, be an absolvitur of the companies or the abandonment of all further steps on the appearance of fresh information which may not represent fraud or be misrepresentation or the withholding of information, in the sense in which the Chancellor speaks—it may be the appearance of fresh details which were not before the Commissioners at the time its decision was reached?

Mr. CHURCHILL: We need not go into details. Of course, I am quite clear that only bona fide disclosures of the trading results of a given year ought to secure the advantages which are afforded by this Clause. If there is a bona fide disclosure of the trading accounts and they say, "This is what we are doing and what we are carrying to reserve; have you any comment to make of an adverse kind on it?" If this
is done in a bona fide manner, the company will be effectively protected.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 15 of Finance Act, 1926.)

Part II of the Finance Act, 1920, which regulates duties on betting and on certificates required in respect of bookmakers' business and premises, shall be amended so as to provide that where any bookmaker shall show, to the satisfaction of the Commissioners, that the original stake on which he has paid duty under Section fifteen (a) of the Finance Act, 1926, has not been paid to him, and that he is unable, after taking all reasonable steps, to obtain payment of it, the amount of the duty charged upon such stake shall be refunded to the bookmaker by the Commissioners.—[Mr. Womersley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I am hoping that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to accept this mild little amendment of the Finance Act, 1926, because it removes one of the anomalies in the Betting Duty law which has really been causing a good deal of annoyance to certain people who are affected by this form of tax. The credit bookmakers have to pay on their turnover as entered in their books. If they are so unfortunate as not to receive the tax from the people who make these credit bets with them, they not only lose their money which forms the stake but also the money that they pay to the Treasury in the form of tax. It does appear to me that it is quite unfair to ask for payment of the duty on money that has never been received. In the case of an ordinary Income Tax return by a trader, he is allowed to deduct from his profits bar debts which can be proved to be really bad and irrecoverable, and all that we are asking for in this Clause is that the credit bookmaker shall be placed in the same position in which the ordinary trader is in regard to Income Tax. To my mind, to ask these people to pay the tax whether they receive the money or not is more than we ought to ask of them.
A test case was taken a short time ago to sec if it were possible to recover from
a defaulting client the amount of the tax which had been paid in respect of his bets. As is well known to all Members of the House, if an attempt is made to recover a debt that is in the form of a stake on a horse race or any other form of betting, all that the defaulter has to do is to plead the gaming laws, and the bookmaker cannot recover. It was felt that it would be wise to take a test case with regard to the question of the recovery of the amount paid in tax, and such a case was recently tried at the Westminster County Court, but the bookmaker was not able to recover. Therefore, I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give this matter his very careful consideration, and I hope that he will be able to grant a concession which I think is only right and just.

Mr. CHURCHILL: No one can deny that there is a plausible case in regard to this matter, more especially when it takes the form of asking that the tax should be recovered which has been paid on bets in the case of which the backer has defaulted. Nevertheless, the position, after full consideration, was deliberately taken up, when the tax was originally imposed, that these bad debts in gambling are a necessary and inevitable part of the circumstances with which persons following the profession of a bookmaker are confronted—that they are an essential part of the risks attaching to the profession, and are capable of being taken into consideration by a bookmaker in the general level of the odds which he gives to his clients and the special rules and regulations which form a part of the conduct of his business; and it was considered that it would be far better for us to leave it to the bookmaker to make his charges to his clients for services rendered in facilitating their wagering acts, and to allow therein a proportion for bad debts, than for the State to come along afterwards and investigate all these exceedingly difficult questions as to whether a debt was a bad debt or not. My hon. Friend, if I may call him so, the Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) would say that all gambling debts were bad debts in the worst sense of the word, but all these processes would have to be followed out on behalf of the State lap by lap along the course—if I may use what seems in the circumstances to be an appropriate
expression—and would involve even greater labour and difficulty than is involved in the enforcement of the tax at the present time.
If we are going to consider at all the Betting Duty and its incidence, I might say—without committing myself in any degree, or making any promise respecting the future—that, as I indicated at an earlier stage in our discussions, I do not close my eyes to a review of the position; but, if we are going to make any such review, I am sure it would be much better to make a general survey rather than deal now with this particular point, which, although a very plausible case can be made on it, is not a point of real substance, does not lead to real embarrassment of the bookmaker, and would only lead the State into further labour without giving relief where relief is most urgently needed.

Mr. RYE: With very great respect to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I cannot see why this distinction should be made between the bookmaker and the ordinary trader. If an ordinary trader makes a bad debt, he is entitled to deduct it for the purpose of arriving at the income on which he pays Income Tax, and, if a bookmaker has failed to recover a debt, I do not see why he should be placed in any different position from the ordinary trader.

Mr. CHURCHILL: He can deduct bad debts in arriving at his income for the purposes of Income Tax, but he cannot deduct them for the purpose of the operation of this special Betting Duty.

Mr. RYE: I understood that the object of this proposed new Clause was to enable the bookmaker to deduct for the purpose of Income Tax——

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Perhaps I may explain to the hon. Member, and to other hon. Members, that this proposed new Clause deals with the Betting Duty, and not with Income Tax. The bookmaker has to pay two taxes—he has to pay Income Tax in addition to the Betting Duty. I only used the Income Tax as an illustration.

Mr. RYE: I apologise for having occupied the time of the Committee.

Mr. RADFORD: I am very disappointed at the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for
Grimsby (Mr. Womersley). We may hold different views with regard to betting and with regard to this Duty, but it seems to me to be entirely inequitable that bookmakers should be taxed upon something which is not their turnover, but a sort of fictitious transaction in which the man who made the bet did not intend to honour, or, at any rate, did not honour, his obligation. Common equity demands that in such a case the bookmaker should be allowed to deduct from his turnover the entry of what proved not to have been a genuine bet so far as he was concerned. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give this matter further consideration, because, in such a case as I have mentioned, it is just as much a loss as a bad debt would be to a person engaged in trade. The right hon. Gentleman said just now that he was confident that bookmakers, in making their books, took into account the possibility that there would be bad debts, but so does a trader. He calculates that one of his trading expenses will be bad debts, but that is no argument against allowing him to charge bad debts in his accounts when they are incurred.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption, for scientific films.)

Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection (1) Section three, Part I, of the Finance Act, 1925, no duty shall be payable upon a film recording scientific investigations or research imported into Great Britain or Northern Ireland when the Commissioners are satisfied that the films will not be sold or hired or publicly exhibited for profit.—[Captain Fraser.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Captain FRASER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is a proposal of a kind that I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be glad to see on the Paper and will be glad to accept, for it will not cost him very much money, and, obviously, some strong arguments can be adduced in its favour, though I do not know that I am competent to adduce them. In 1925 a tax was put upon all films imported into this country. This proposed new Clause seeks to exempt from taxation a small and very select group of films. There was a case in 1925
against the taxation of scientific films in the circumstances mentioned in the Clause, but the case is very much stronger now, for within the last few years a new technique has arisen whereby the film has come to be used as a record of scientific investigation and research. A man who has made researches with a microscope or a telescope, or in other directions of a scientific particularly a medico-scientific kind, now finds is possible, through the technique which has been developed, to record those researches and investigations upon a film instead of a piece of paper, and just as the House would properly resist any suggestion that books or treatises proposed to be imported into the country for the advancement of science should be subject to duty, so I hope the Committee will take the view that similar records of scientific work which happen to be recorded on celluloid instead of paper should equally be imported free. Science knows no barriers, and ought not to be subject to any taxation.
There have been one or two cases recently noted in the "Times" where foreign scientists have desired to bring to this country films recording the valuable work they have done, not for profit, not for sale, but simply to demonstrate to their colleagues working on similar lines in this country and to give an opportunity of talking over the progress they have made, and planning further progress. Cancer is very likely to be alleviated by some of the researches that are being made at present in America, England and Germany by men who use microscopes and cinematographs to record their researches, and the free interchange between these countries of the results of their investigations is something which I feel no taxation should possibly be allowed to impede. I hope the Chancellor may find it possible to make this concession, and that he will not say the effort involved or the machinery required to be set up is a let or a hindrance. It cannot be anything like so much trouble to a few Customs officials to sort out these few select films as it is to the scientist to bring them to this country. We want to welcome all the information and the research we can, and I hope it may be found possible to remove a barrier, quite properly erected
in another connection, which is undoubtedly hampering science.

Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: I beg to support the Clause. The object is one with which every Member of the Committee must have sympathy. Even in the few years since 1925 the importance of these scientific films has considerably increased. Many of these have originated in America, Germany and other countries, and are most valuable for teaching and scientific purposes. It has always been one of the proudest features of science, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman says, that it has no barriers of country, and there should be free trade in all that appertains to science and research and anything that will make for the alleviation of human suffering. Therefore, I think there can be no question that the suggested removal of this tax will have the sympathy of all of us, and no doubt of the right hon. Gentleman himself. The only possible objection I can see is that of administration, but I should think it would be possible for the scientific bodies to which such films would be consigned to give a certification which would make it feasible to work this exception without causing much administrative difficulty. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will receive this proposal in a sympathetic spirit and I am sure, if he does, he will receive the thanks, not only of scientific bodies, but of the general public opinion of the country.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I want to assure my hon. and gallant Friend that we have given careful and very sympathetic consideration to this matter. We should like very much to meet him if we could, but we have been forced, much against our own wish, to the conclusion that the exemption would be difficult, and indeed almost impossible to administer. It would be exceedingly difficult to decide what films could be regarded as "recording scientific investigations or research," especially in these days of popular science. There are many films which come into the category described by my hon. and gallant Friend which would be equally suitable for the ordinary cinematograph theatre. It would be almost beyond the power of the Revenue Department to keep track of these films to see whether those that are of a scientific
nature are used for scientific purposes only or for the ordinary cinematograph theatre as well. I should like to quote an observation made on the Report stage of the Finance Bill of 1923 by the present Home Secretary, who was then in the office that I now have the privilege to hold. Speaking on an Amendment with a similar object to this, an Amendment to exempt from duty films of a wholly educational character, he said:
The reason why we cannot accept this Amendment is because of the utter impossibility of carrying it out. It is not that we object to educational films. The reason, from the practical point of view, and the Customs point of view, is that we cannot work the Amendment if the House passes it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1923; col. 287, Vol. 166.]
I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not press the Clause, and my reason for asking him not to do so is that we should find it practically impossible to work it.

Captain FRASER: I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider the opinion he has been given by his experts. I am certain it has been given in good faith, but I cannot imagine anyone who would want to see the kind of films I have in mind. They are only of interest to medical men, and I think if the suggestion of the Seconder were adopted, that the Customs officials should be satisfied by, say, the Royal Society or the Royal Astronomical Society or some accredited body of that sort, there could be no difficulty. These are not popular films in any sense. I would ask, if possible, that the matter should be reconsidered. If I am assured that this is really impossible and the Chancellor has given all the thought he can to the subject in this very busy time, I am satisfied, but I would ask him to think about it further.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot give any undertaking to arrive at a different conclusion from that which has been so clearly and forcibly put forward by the Financial Secretary. Nevertheless, in view of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, I will see that the facts which have been adduced are tested and examined once again, and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would wish to have access to the officials who have considered the matter, I will see that they
are charged to receive any further evidence or argument that he has to put before them. Then at any rate he will feel that the representations he has made have had the most careful consideration.

Captain FRASER: I thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer very much and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amount of Assessment under Rule 21 to be allowed as a loss for certain purposes.)

Where a person has been assessed to tax for any year of assessment, not being a year prior to the year 1927–28, under Rule 21 of the general rules, in respect of a payment made wholly and exclusively for the purposes of a trade, profession, or vocation (not being a payment of or on account of copyright royalties to which Section twenty-five of the Finance Act, 1927, applies) the amount on which tax has been paid under that assessment shall, for the purposes of Section thirty-three of the Finance Act, 1926. be treated as though it were a loss sustained in that trade, profession, or vocation, and, subject to the provisions of that Section, relief in respect thereof shall he allowed in computing that person's liability to tax in respect of the profits or gains of that trade, profession, or vocation for the six years following the said year of assessment.

Provided that no relief shall be allowed under this Section in respect of any such payment or any part of any such payment which is not ultimately borne by the person assessed or which is charged to capital.—[Mr. Rye.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. RYE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree (Mr. Tinne) has been put down for the purpose of dealing with a very difficult situation which has arisen following a decision given in another place in an action brought by the Attorney-General against the Metropolitan Water Board. The matter which is the subject of the new Clause is a highly technical and extremely complicated one, but I have no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is fully aware of the circumstances, and I am hoping therefore that he will see his way to accept this Clause. To explain the position to the Committee I should mention that the position as regards a trader who borrows money and
has to pay interest on that borrowed money, or has to pay an annual royalty, is that for the purpose of Income Tax he is not entitled to deduct the amount so paid for interest or the amount so paid for royalty. He is, however, entitled as between himself and his lender or the owner of the royalty to deduct Income Tax at the current rate, and consequently, having deducted his Income Tax at the source, he is therefore recouped and is not at a loss. That was the position prior to the decision in the case to which I referred. Now, unfortunately, it has been held that where a trader has made at loss, or has not made a profit equivalent to the amount of tax to be deducted, he is not entitled to keep in his pocket the tax which he has deducted as against the lender or as against the royalty owner as the case may be, but he has to pay that tax over to the revenue, and the result is that the unfortunate trader is neither able to deduct his payment for the purpose of arriving at his tax assessed upon his profits, nor is able to get it as between himself and the person who lends the money or who receives the royalty.
10.0 p.m.
The object of the new Clause is to enable him to regard the payment of interest or royalty as the case may be as being in the nature of a loss, and to carry it forward under the general rule for a period of six years, so that as against future profits he may have the benefit of that loss. If he does not get that benefit he is the loser. I think the Committee will agree that in the ordinary way a trader, before be has to pay Income Tax upon the amount of his profit, would necessarily be allowed to deduct any outgoings in the nature of a business expense. Unfortunately under the law as it now stands and on the principle of the deduction of Income Tax at the source—a very sound principle, as the Committee will agree—he cannot do so, and since the decision to which I have referred, the trader is placed in an extremely awkward position: for he can neither deduct it for the purpose of his trading account, nor can he deduct it as against the revenue. Having deducted it as against the lender or the royalty owner and, of course, with the intention of retaining the money for his own purposes, he has now to pay it all. It is with the object of relieving
him from that hardship that I beg to move this Clause.

Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Rye) has explained this matter to the Committee very lucidly and correctly. The new Clause which he has moved is the result of discussions between the Treasury and persons representing traders who may be affected by the decision to which he has referred; and it has been examined and agreed by the Parliamentary Counsel who drafted the Measure. It arises undoubtedly out of the recent decision in the Court of Appeal in the case of the Attorney-General v. The Metropolitan Water Board. The purpose of the new Clause is, as has been explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough, to ensure that the provisions of the Income Tax Acts with regard to collection at the source, which require a person paying interest to deduct the tax upon that interest, shall not so operate as to make that person pay a tax on an imaginary profit, but only on an actual profit. I, therefore, have great pleasure in accepting the Clause.

Mr. RYE: May I on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree (Mr. Tinne) and myself thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for kindly accepting the Amendment.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 73 of Taxes Management Act, 1880.)

Where by virtue of Sub-section (5) or Subsection (8) of Section seventy-three of the Taxes Management Act, 1880, the Land Tax Commissioners, or the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, respectively, have power to appoint a collector of Land Tax for any area, those Commissioners shall appoint a collector for that area to hold office during their will and pleasure, and Sub-section (1) of that Section shall have effect as if for the words "in the month of April in each year," there were substituted the words "within a month from the occurrence of a vacancy for a collector," and Sub-section (8) of that Section shall have effect as if—

(a) for the words "on or before the thirty-first day of May in any year," there were substituted the words "within two months after the date at which a vacancy has occurred"; and
1296
(b) the words "for that and for every subsequent year" were omitted.—[Sir H. Buckingham.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir H. BUCKINGHAM: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause is a very formidable looking one, but the point of it is a very small one and I trust the Committee will accept it. I am informed that it now appears on the Order Paper in the correct form, and I am very hopeful that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is prepared to accept it as it stands. The object of the new Clause is to place collectors of Land Tax, who in nearly all cases are identical with collectors of Income Tax, on the same terms as those upon which this House placed collectors of Income Tax by the Finance Bill of last year. The Committee may remember that prior to last year collectors of Income Tax were appointed from year to year and held only annual appointments. Now, by the action of the Finance Act, 1927, the position of these valuable public servants has been improved in so far that the House then agreed to make their appointments not annual but subject to the good will of the Commissioners who appoint them. I now beg to move this Clause, which provides that the Land Tax Collectors shall be placed in the same position.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I accept this Clause, which has been approved by the Parliamentary Counsel in its present form. Last year by the provisions of the Finance Act continuity of employment was extended to collectors of Income Tax, and this Clause makes it clear that that continuity of employment will hold good whether the collectors are appointed by the Board of Inland Revenue or by the Land Tax Commissioners, an obvious measure of equity and equality. I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir Henry Buckingham) for having brought the matter forward.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Option of making return of total income to Special Commissioners.)

"(1) An individual who for any year of assessment is chargeable to Surtax may by
giving notice in writing to the Special Commissioners not later than the first day of May next following the end of that year of his desire so to do, elect to make a return of his total income to those Commissioners, and any such election shall have effect not only as respects that year, but also as respects all subsequent years for which he remains chargeable to Surtax.

Provided that any individual who has so elected may at any time in any subsequent year of assessment give notice in writing to the Commissioners of his desire to revoke the election and thereupon the election shall cease to have effect except as respects any year preceding the year in which notice is so given.

(2) Where for any year of assessment an election made by an individual under this Section is in force—

(a) the Special Commissioners may serve upon that individual a notice requiring him to make a return of his total income, and that individual shall make such a return in the form and within the time required by the notice, and Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section forty-four of the Finance Act, 1927, shall apply in relation to any such return; and
(b) the return required to be made by that individual under Sub-section (1) of Section forty-three of the Finance Act, 1927, of all the sources of his income and of the amount derived from each source for that year shall be limited to a return of any income which is assessable under either Schedule D or Schedule E."—[Sir H. Buckingham.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir H. BUCKINGHAM: I beg to move. "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The provision in regard to making one return for a particular income means that every taxpayer will have to make his returns from all sources to some local surveyor of taxes, but it has been pointed out that there is a certain number of people to whom it would be very inconvenient and unfair, and possibly injurious to their credit, if it were necessary for them to make a return of the whole of their income to a local inspector of taxes. Therefore, I am asking the Committee by this new Clause to give those Surtax payers who desire it the option of continuing to make, as they do at present, their returns of total income to the Special Commissioners of Taxes. It would certainly rather alter the actual position of one man, one return, but in these particular cases the result would be that one man would make two returns. He would make one return of his tax income to the Special
Commissioners and he would make his return of income under Schedule D or Schedule E to some local inspector of taxes whom he may select from the various places where he may earn that income. I do not think that I need add anything more to recommend this Clause to the Committee, as I hope the desirability of it will be obvious.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Inland Revenue inform me that no additional labour will be caused by allowing this option to taxpayers who wish to exercise it. It is quite true that it derogates slightly from the principle of one man, one return, but that principle was adopted for the convenience of the taxpayer, and if certain classes of taxpayers wish to go on making their returns, as they do now to Special Commissioners, because, for various reasons, they do not desire to disclose all their income to the local collector, there is no reason why that wish should not be met. The Inland Revenue are always anxious, as far as possible, in this extremely unpleasant duty of tax collection, to meet every wish and to cater for all tastes.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Extension of Section 21 of Finance Act, 1920.)

Sub-section (1) of Section twenty-one of the Finance Act, 1920 (which allows deductions in respect of children), shall be extended by adding after the words "educational establishment," the words "or is wholly or mainly maintained by the claimant while learning a trade, profession, or occupation, or is apprenticed to any trade or profession."—[Mr. Gates.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. GATES: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I do not know whether I can hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be equally complacent in this case as in the last. I would remind the Committee that Section 21 of the Finance Act, 1920, gave to parents of children under 16 years of age or who, if over 16, were receiving full-time instruction at any university, college, school or other educational establishment, an allowance of £36 for one child and £27 for each subsequent child. That allowance has now been increased by the Finance Bill of this year to £60
and £50 respectively. The object of my Clause is to extend the benefit of the deductions allowed to parents who have not the means to keep their children at a university or other educational establishment, but who are obliged by their circumstances to apprentice them to trades or article them to professional people to enable them to become self-supporting at a comparatively early age. There are, I am afraid, a great many people, such as widows of officers and professional men—lawyers, doctors, and so on—who have to maintain their children at home while they are apprenticing them or articling them to lawyers or accountants or putting them into business. I have a letter in my hand from a constituent of mine who apprenticed his daughter to a hairdressing establishment, and it was pointed out that if he had been able to send her to a greater educational establishment, he could get the allowance, but as he was only apprenticing her to a business and she was living at home, he could not get the allowance. It seems to me to be very unfair that the better class of parents, who can afford to send their children to a university, should have the benefit of this allowance, while the poorer parents of, shall I say, the poorer middle classes, are unable to get it. I do not think that it would cost the Chancellor of the Exchequer a large sum of money to remedy this injustice. That it is an injustice I think every hon. Member of the Committee will agree. I am encouraged to move this Clause as the Chancellor of the Exchequer was reported in the Budget speech as saying:
The burden of bringing up a family of young children weighs very heavily upon the smaller class of Income Tax payer and is not sufficiently discounted by our present legislation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1928; col. 871, Vol. 216.]
I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give the smaller Income Tax payer the benefit of this concession, and I am sure that he will receive due recognition from all the poorer classes of professional people.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): I am afraid it would be impossible to ask the Committee to accept this new Clause. It is suggested that for some reason or
other the Clause, if accepted, would be for the benefit of the poorer classes as against the better-to-do classes, but I cannot see how that would come about through the words of the Clause, which would allow an allowance to be made indefinitely while the children of the claimant were learning a trade or profession. The Mover of the Clause is himself a professional man, and he will realise that even professional men are kept by their parents up to rather an advanced age. It is not supposed that a surgeon can make much more than his laundry bills until the age of 40, and it would be quite unreasonable to expect the Inland Revenue to keep track of such people up to such an age. But even in the case of the poorer parents, it would mean that the inducement offered to them to keep their children at some recognised educational establishment in preference to sending them out to work would be insufficient, and I do not think it would give the benefit to the poorer people as against the richer people, while I am sure it might lead to undesirable consequences in the case of the very poor parents themselves.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time" put, and negatived.

The CHAIRMAN: The new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley)—(Amendment of law as to levying of betting tax)—would create an extra charge and is therefore out of order, and the same remark applies to the new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Sir W. Sugden)—(Amendment to 17 and 18 Geo. V.).

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: I would like some explanation of the differentiation that is made in respect of my Clause, which, with very great respect, eliminates the extra charge.

The CHAIRMAN: I think not. I think that the hon. Member proposes to insert an alternative which, in certain cases, might work out in a greater duty being paid than under the provisions of the Finance Act of last year. His alternative in some cases might work out greater and in some eases less, but, as a rule in these cases, even if one taxpayer has to pay more, that prevents the matter from being raised by a private Member even if 999 pay less.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: May I ask if the same applies to the Clause standing in my name?

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member is out of time. As a matter of fact, it does.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 8 of Finance Act, 1894.)

There shall be added to Section eight of the Finance Act, 1894, the following additional Sub-section:
A copy of the inventory of the estate upon which Estate Duty has been paid shall be incorporated as part of the grant of probate."—[Mr. Couper.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. COUPER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I should like to say that the intention of this Clause is to arrive at uniformity of administration of the collection of the Estate Duty throughout the United Kingdom. The peculiarity about this Clause is, that it is not one which suggests to the Chancellor of the Exchequer any reduction of any sum that he requires for the Exchequer of the country, but is rather to direct his attention to a means of collecting what is really due under the prevailing law which has not been pressed south of the Border. The law as it stands is the same both for Scotland and for England, but in Scotland the law is so administered that the inventory of the estate on which duty has been paid is attached to or is incorporated in the probate granted to the executors of a deceased person, while in England no such inventory is required to be attached, and consequently there is the possibility of the evasion of the payment of dues to which the Exchequer is rightly entitled. I, therefore, suggest in this Clause that it should be made an instruction that
A copy of the inventory of the estate upon which Estate Duty has been paid shall be incorporated as part of the grant of probate.
In that way all that is intended to be carried out is, that all Estate Duty will be paid to the revenue authorities where it is intended that it should be paid. I have no wish to suspect, nor am I one who has any doubt or suspicion of, anyone, but I think we are entitled not to put temptation in the way of anyone to evade payment. At the present moment
the administration of estates in England is such that temptation is put in the way of the executors or the legal authorities who are administering the estate, while in Scotland—and I do not put Scotland on a higher pedestal—the legal authorities have no such temptation put in their way, because every estate, in being administered, has to produce an inventory, duly certifying that every item has already had Estate Duty paid upon it. I, therefore, suggest that this would be an enormous asset to the Chancellor of the Exchequer I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not present, because I have had conversations with him at different times on this subject. In his-speech last year he commented on the fact that he intended on every occasion to close whatever loophole there might be for evasion of Estate or Death Duties. He said that he would make arangements to prevent any such evasion, but until now such arrangements have not been made. I suggest that by the addition of this new Clause there would be no possible chance of any such evasion.

Major ELLIOT: I fear that on Home Rule grounds it will be necessary for me to resist this new Clause. We may desire in Scotland that the English law should be assimilated to ours, but we cannot expect the English to take an absolutely identical view. It is true that our more suspicious minds might suggest that if a chance for evading the law, especially in regard to money, is presented to executors of estates, they will take it; bat I am assured that the leakage in England is very small and is, indeed, negligible. The proper place for such an Amendment would be in the law of probate, and that would meet with opposition on the part of the whole legal fraternity. An alteration of the law of probate can only be demanded on grounds of a far more serious leakage. I am advised that that serious leakage does not take place, and I must ask the Committee not to accept the proposed new Clause.

Mr. RADFORD: I am sorry to hear the reply of the Government. This is a common-sense proposal that might well be accepted by the Government. Years before I ever thought that I should be a Member of this House, I well remember, going back some 27 or 28 years to the days when I was first a chartered
accountant, I was given the probate of a will to register in the books of a private company of which I was secretary. I looked at the probate, which gave a statement that the estate had been proved at a certain figure, and that duty of a certain amount had been paid and that probate had been granted to so-and-so, the executors named therein. I looked through the probate to see if there was any reference in it to the shares belonging to the deceased which were registered as his property in the company, of which I was acting as secretary. I little thought that 27 years afterwards I should be in this House dealing with that point. It seems to me only a matter of common sense that there should have been attached to that probate a copy of the Inland Revenue affidavit showing the detailed investments of the testator on which probate duty had been paid, and which were registered in the books of

the company. There is every reason why the new Clause should be accepted. I can see nothing against it. Only a fortnight ago, when this new Clause appeared on the Paper with my name associated with it, I had probate to register in respect of a company of which I am secretary, and there was a statement that the testator had left £100,000; that he was the possessor of 2,000 shares in the company, but there was no proof whatever that the 2,000 shares had been included in the Inland Revenue affidavit. It has been done in Scotland and there is no reason why we should not add it to the English law. If there is not even a penny of evasion it is only a matter of common sense that such an inventory should be added in order to make the inventory complete.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 134; Noes, 226.

Division No. 232.]
AYES.
[10.26 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Riley, Ben


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Ritson, J.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardle, George D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Ammon, Charles George
Harris, Percy A.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayday, Arthur
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Barnes, A.
Hayes, John Henry
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scrymgeour, E.


Briant, Frank
Hirst, G. H.
Scurr, John


Broad, F. A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sexton, James


Bromfield, William
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Bromley, J.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sitch, Charles H.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smillie, Robert


Connolly, M.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Cove, W. G.
Kennedy, T.
Snell, Harry


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kirkwood, D.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lansbury, George
Stamford, T. W.


Dalton, Hugh
Lawrence, Susan
Stephen, Campbell


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Dennison, R.
Lee, F.
Strauss, E. A.


Duckworth, John
Lindley, F. W.
Sutton, J. E.


Duncan, C.
Lowth, T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Dunnico, H.
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Edge, Sir William
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Tomlinson, R. P.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Varley, Frank B.


England, Colonel A.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Viant, S. P.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
March, S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Fenby, T. D.
Maxton, James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gardner, J. P.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wellock, Wilfred


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Montague, Frederick
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Murnin, H.
Whiteley, W.


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Wiggins, William Martin


Gosling, Harry
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenall, T.
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Colne)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ponsonby, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.
Mr. Couper and Mr. Radford.


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Forrest, W.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Pennefather, Sir John


Albery, Irving James
Fraser, Captain Ian
Penny, Frederick George


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Gates, Percy
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Perring, Sir William George


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Goff, Sir Park
Philipson, Mabel


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Pitcher, G.


Astor, Viscountess
Grace, John
Power, Sir John Cecil


Atkinson, C.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Preston, William


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Price, Major C. W. M.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Raine, Sir Walter


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Ramsden, E.


Bennett, A. J.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Betterton, Henry B.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Reid, Capt. Cunningham(Warrington)


Bevan, S. J.
Hamilton, Sir George
Remer, J. R.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hammersley, S. S.
Rentoul, G. S.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Hanbury, C.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Blundell, F. N.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Harland, A.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harrison, G. J. C.
Ropner, Major L.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hartington, Marquess of
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Salmon, Major I.


Eridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Briggs, J. Harold
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Briscoe, Richard George
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Brittain, Sir Harry
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. I. G.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Brown. Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Savery, S. S.


Buchan, John
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Burman, J. B.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Shepperson, E. W.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, whitsh'n)
Skelton, A. N.


Campbell, E. T.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Carver, Major W. H.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hurd, Percy A.
Smithers, Waldron


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Iliffe. Sir Edward M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Iveagh, Countess of
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth. Cen'l)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Clarry, Reginald George
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'etand)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jephcott, A. R.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Storry-Deans, R.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Cooper, A. Duff
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Cope, Major Sir William
Knox, Sir Alfred
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cowan, Sir wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Loder, J. de V.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Long, Major Eric
Waddington, R.


Crookshank, Cpt. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lougher, Lewis
Wallace, Captain D, E.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Warrender. Sir Victor


Dalkeith, Earl of
McDonnell. Colonel Hon. Angus
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
McLean, Major A.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Watts, Sir Thomas


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Manningham-Buller. Sir Mervyn
Wells, S. R.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Drewe, C.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Milne. J. S. Wardlaw-
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark. Lanark)
Withers, John James


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Womersley, W. J.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wood, E. (Chest'r. Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Ellis, R. G.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Nelson, Sir Frank



Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Falls, Sir Bertram G.
Nuttall, Ellis
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Captain Margesson.


Fielden, E. B.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of law as to separate assessment of husband and wife.)

Section twenty-six of the Finance Act, 1919, shall cease to have effect, and the sixth day of September shall be substituted for the sixth day of May, in Section eight of the Income Tax Act, 1918, and in rule seventeen of the general rules as the date before which an application for separate assessment of husband and wife must be made under those provisions; and an application for the purposes of those provisions may in the case of persons marrying during the course of a year of assessment be made as regards that year at any time before the sixth day of September in the following year; and those provisions shall have effect accordingly.—[Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of the proposed New Clause can be explained in a few words. In 1914, the Finance Bill gave, for the first time, a general right to husbands and wives to have separate assessments for the purposes of Income Tax. It did not alter the total amount that the married couple had to pay, but it enabled them each to have a separate assessment for dealing with his or her own income, separately, and the total tax was apportioned between them according to certain rules. The Finance Act of 1914 fixed 6th May as the date by which the claim for the separate assessment had to be made. The Act of 1919 postponed the date until 6th July, and I propose in this new Clause to extend the period still further until 6th September. I think it will be generally agreed that, if this option is to be given at all to married couples to choose whether they will be assessed together or separately, the date should be put as late as it can conveniently be put. On the other hand, it must be put sufficiently early to enable those who have to make up the assessments to prepare them at the proper time. I suggest that 6th July is unnecessarily early, and that where circumstances arise which mean that either the husband or the wife desire or require a separate assessment after 6th July there is no reason why the date should be rigidly adhered to.
It seems to me that 6th September is quite a reasonable date for this purpose, but, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer considers that too late, and thinks that those who make up the assessments will
be inconvenienced thereby, and in some cases have to make up an assessment again, I suggest to him that some concession might be made in this matter. I should be satisfied if he could give an assurance that the rule would not be as rigidly enforced as it is at the present time. Some of these rules are very rigidly enforced, and others are treated with a certain amount of latitudinarianism. If the date which I propose cannot be adopted, will the Chancellor give an assurance that this rule will not be interpreted as strictly and rigidly as it has been in the past, and that when-for some special reason circumstances arise perhaps after this date, whereby a husband or wife desire to have a separate assessment, this rule will be construed leniently and not strictly enforced. If that be done, the exact date in this new Clause need not be carried into law.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Gentleman asks us to choose between 6th July and 6th September, but it would cause a great deal of difficulty to alter these dates. The question we have to ask ourselves is: Is there any hardship in the present system? Under the present system, the husband and wife can claim to be separately assessed for Income Tax by giving notice by 6th July in the year of assessment, or, when marriage takes place in that year, giving notice before the 6th July in the following year. So they have at least three months to make up their minds. We think that, upon the whole, that is a sufficient period. After all, even if you went to the 6th of September you would still have seven months before the end of the year in which some event making separate assessment desirable might arise. I am advised that the proposal would cause a great deal of difficulty in the ordinary administration of the tax. This question of the date when husband and wife should elect to be assessed separately to Income Tax is bound up with the much larger question of the pooling of the incomes of husband and wife, and that is a very large question. Undoubtedly arguments could be adduced to show that, whereas men and women living together in the bonds of holy matrimony have to pay on the joint income, they could sometimes escape part of the burden if they were not married. No doubt there are cases of hardship, but that change would cost a very large sum of money to the revenue.

The CHAIRMAN: I think our labours will be prolonged if hon. Members are tempted to go into those considerations, which I do not think arise under this Clause.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman. The only reason which led me to mention it was to show how very small was the hardship which the Clause sought to remedy as compared with the much larger issue. We cannot accept this proposal.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Schedule 2, Finance Act, 1927.)

In the Second Schedule of the Finance Act, 1927, for the figures—

8s. 10d. 8s. 10½d. 9s. 9½d. 9s. 10d.

there shall be substituted—

8s. 6d. 8s. 6½d. 9s. 5½d. 9s. 6d.—[Mr. Hardie.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. HARDIE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Some Members of the Committee may have some difficulty in realising to what these figures in the Clause apply. My reason for not including the word "tobacco" is that as a smoker I do not want to tell lies about anything, and many things are now being sold under that name which bear little or no relation to what we understood in the past toy the word "tobacco." To-day we have been dealing with the Surtax and the Super-tax, we have been up among the cigar areas, among the high falutin', high paying people, and it is not at all a bad thing to bring the Committee down to the question of the ordinary-man's pipe of tobacco. I am not asking for a very great reduction, and I am moving this Clause in order to ascertain whether the Government will take steps to secure that when the Chancellor is taxing tobacco he is taxing something other than a name. When he taxed artificial silk he only taxed a name, because nobody can tell what artificial silk is. If the Government claim the right to take money from people who use the weed, the Government ought to come along with some specification of tobacco, so that people may know that they are getting what they are paying for. We have a definition of proof
spirit, and it is laid down that spirits must have a certain alcoholic content, and if that stipulation is necessary in the case of spirits it is equally necessary in the case of tobacco. To-day the duty is being applied to substances which are a mere concoction and not tobacco at all, and I hope the Chancellor will be able to devise some guarantee as to the nature of that which is being taxed. There may be people interested in the tobacco trade in this House who can tell us something about tobacco, and, if they can tell us what is not tobacco, they will be doing a great service to the public. Recently, we had some instances given of what was alleged to be tobacco that comes under this tax.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is arguing as to the standard of purity of tobacco, but I do not see anything in this Clause which promotes purity.

Mr. HARDIE: The whole Clause should promote purity in tobacco, but, when you find shavings and sawdust in tobacco, that is not promoting purity.

The CHAIRMAN: There is nothing in this Clause that says what is smoked.

Mr. HARDIE: Surely I am within my rights in saying that as we are being asked to pay these charges we should have some guarantee that the article sold is according to what is printed on the label.

The CHAIRMAN: That might be a subject for discussion on the Food and Drugs Act, or the hon. Member might bring in a Bill under the Ten Minute Rule, but what he is dealing with has nothing to do with the Amendment.

Mr. HARDIE: As the stuff I am dealing with is a poison, perhaps I shall be able to bring it in under the Poisons Act.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member seems to be applying to tobacco the arguments used by the hon. Member for the Royton Division (Dr. Davies) with regard to tea, but whether tobacco is a healthy narcotic stimulant or a poison is not affected by this new Clause, and the hon. Member cannot continue on those lines.

Mr. HARDIE: The Act says that what is dealt with is tobacco, and is it fair that something which is not tobacco should be used as the means of bringing in this revenue?

The CHAIRMAN: I have referred the hon. Member to his proper remedy, and if he wishes to continue, he can move his new Clause if he supports it with arguments which are relative to his proposal.

Mr. HARDIE: I think it is time that something should be done to reduce the cost of what is going to be taxed under this Clause. I think this article ought to be much cheaper. We have been listening to arguments from hon. Members who can afford cigars at 2s. 6d. or 5s. each, and they have been addressing themselves to the Super-tax, but I am pleading that something should be done for the pipe smoker, and I want more interest taken in the subject with which we are now dealing.

Mr. STEPHEN MITCHELL: It is not often that I inflict myself on this Committee, but, as hon. Members may be aware, I have some little knowledge of this subject, and therefore I should be lacking in my duty if I did not make one or two comments on the new Clause. It may be well if I make it perfectly clear what it is that this new Clause tries to do. It tries to reduce the duty on tobacco by fourpence per pound. I think it may be rather refreshing to the Opposition to realise that the few comments which I have to make are not entirely in praise of those who are responsible for the increase in the Tobacco Duty or for the over-production of Empire tobacco which this country cannot possibly consume.
The Committee will remember perfectly well that last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer imposed an additional tax of eightpence per pound on tobacco, bringing the total duty up to 8s. 10d. per pound or 6½d. per ounce, or approximately a duty of threepence on a packet of 10 cigarettes and sixpence on a packet of 20. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the amount of duty which the working men and women of this country are paying to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am going into a few figures which, I hope, will not weary
the Committee. Take, for example, the man who smokes two ounces of tobacco per week—a very small allowance. He is paying the Exchequer £2 17s. per annum. Take for example the man or woman who smokes a packet of 10 cigarettes per day—not a very large amount.

The CHAIRMAN: I ought to point out that this Amendment does not apply to cigarettes at all.

Mr. MITCHELL: With all respect, I submit that cigarettes are manufactured entirely from tobacco.

The CHAIRMAN: I believe they contain the ingredient of paper. On referring to the relative Schedule I find that the tax is on tobacco alone and not on cigars and cigarettes. This particular Amendment deals only with unmanufactured tobacco, and not with tobacco in the form of cigarettes or cigars.

Mr. MITCHELL: I would submit that we are proposing to reduce the tax on unmanufactured tobacco from 8s. 10d. per lb. by 4d., and before you can manufacture cigarettes you have got to pay 8s. 10d. at the present moment.

The CHAIRMAN: That may be, but the argument as to the cost of cigarettes can surely be considered in relation to the quantity of tobacco in them and not the extra tax.

Mr. MITCHELL: I submit that the cost of the duty affects the cost of the cigarette to the smoking public and therefore the question whether you should have a cheaper cigarette——

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will confine his argument to the amount of tobacco included in the cigarette without reference to the extra tax on it or to the paper which encircles it he will be in order.

Mr. MITCHELL: With all due respect, if you will submit to me a particular size of cigarette I can give the quantity of tobacco or paper in it. I was trying to bring out the fact that the man or woman in this country who consumes a packet of 10 cigarettes per day is paying tax to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the extent of some £3 14s. per annum, and, if the tobacco manufacturers had not come to the rescue of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year by bearing entirely the increase in duty, the cigarette
smoker in this country would have been paying at the moment to the Chancellor of the Exchequer some £3 19s. per annum. The right hon. Gentleman in his Budget speech last year, when speaking on the increase in the Tobacco Duty, made the following statement:
This increased tax"—
that is to say, the increase of 8d. per pound—
will, I estimate, produce £3,400,000 in a full year, and £3,100,000 in 1927."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1928; col. 93, Vol. 205.]
I had the audacity then to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he had under-estimated the amount of tax which would be received, and I told him that he would receive a very much larger sum in additional duty. What are the facts? For greater accuracy I have taken the trouble to obtain the figures from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and they are very astounding figures. They show that the value of the duty collected from Empire and non-Empire tobacco for the year ending March, 1927, was approximately £03,000,000; and I have figures also from the Financial Secretary showing that, for the year ending March, 1928, the Chancellor has received £73,000,000 by way of duty, or an increase of some £10,000,000, whereas the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated——

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member is giving figures for tobacco manufactured and unmanufactured: but this proposed new Clause deals only with unmanufactured tobacco.

Mr. MITCHELL: I have mentioned that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the 12 months ending March, 1928, received a revenue from Empire and non-Empire tobacco, unmanufactured, of £73,000,000——

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member's figures relate only to unmanufactured tobacco, he is perfectly in order.

Mr. MITCHELL: I assure you, Sir, that, so far as the duty on tobacco is concerned, it is always paid before the tobacco can be manufactured. The tobacco is put into bond, and it is only after the duty has been paid that it can be manufactured. The Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated that he would
receive £3,400,000 by way of extra revenue from the Tobacco Duty, whereas he has obtained £10,000,000, or a surplus of some £7,000,000. Are we to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this great windfall which, apparently, he did not expect, or are we to sympathise and condole with him on being surrounded by experts who gave him this very inaccurate information? No one can blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer for these inaccuracies, but we blame other people, and I venture to say that in the commercial world, if a man of business found that his experts were giving him estimates which were over 200 per cent. out, he would spend a considerable amount of time and a considerable part of his energy in setting his house in order. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech kept very dark about this colossal increase in the tobacco revenue. He said very little about it. He said:
The increased duty upon tobacco more than realised our expectations. That is certainly satisfactory when we remember that cigarettes which comprise three-fourths of the tobacco consumption, have not been increased in price."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1928; cols. 837–8, Vol. 216.]
We had a most eloquent and refreshing speech from the right hon. Gentleman on the Budget which lasted for some four hours. To tobacco, which is bringing him a revenue of over £73,000,000 a year, the Chancellor devoted exactly 31 words. I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the pipe smoker. The tobacco manufacturers came to the rescue of the cigarette smoker, and bore the burden entirely, but they did not come to the rescue of the pipe smoker. Let us see what the pipe smoker has to bear. The total population of the country is in the neighbourhood of 40,000,000. The smoking public is in the neighbourhood of 20,000,000. The pipe smoker is, 25 per cent.; therefore 5,000,000 people are pipe smokers, and they have contributed £2,500,000 annually of this additional tax to the Chancellor which works out at 10s. per head. It will depend entirely on the reply I get from the Government how I cast my vote.

Major ELLIOT: I quite sympathise with the desire of the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) for purity in tobacco, but I cannot reply to his argument on that point, because there is
nothing in the Amendment which would in any way effect the object he has in view. It is, therefore, impossible to reply without being out of order. I should have thought the hon. Member, whose Parliamentary skill and ingenuity are the envy of us all, would have been able to find some method of raising the subject which would allow me to develop the theme. [Interruption.] I was explaining to hon. Members opposite and to my hon. Friend the Member for Spring-burn that it was impossible for me to pursue him into the vicissitudes of his argument, and therefore I must go to the merits of the new Clause which he moved. Upon that, I should just wish to say that the result of the decrease of the Tobacco Duties which he proposes would be a loss to the Exchequer which is estimated at over £1,500,000 in 1928–29 and over £2,250,000 in a full year.

Mr. HARDIE: How much would you have left?

Major ELLIOT: It would be £2,250,000 less than we should have left if we did not remit the duty, and that is the important point which we have to consider. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mr. S. Mitchell) addressed a most eloquent appeal to the Government with regard to the price at which tobacco was at present being sold and also went so

far as to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was raising an unconscionable sum in revenue from the smokers of this country. I observe that the company of which he is so distinguished an ornament has raised as much as £8,000,000 in a single year from the smokers of this country.

Mr. MITCHELL: That is a private enterprise.

Major ELLIOT: I suggest that the merits of private enterprise are not to be measured by the dividend which the company was able to pay, but, be that as it may, I will not pursue that argument either. I will merely say that it is within the power of the tobacco companies themselves to make considerable reductions in the price of tobacco, and it is not possible for us to make any concession in regard to this, and certainly not to make any concession which will have the result of losing perhaps £2,500,000 to the Exchequer in a single year, without a guarantee that a penny of that amount would pass into the pockets of the pipe smokers for whom this reduction has been asked. I ask the Committee to reject this Clause.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 121; Noes, 225.

Division No. 233.]
AYES.
[11.8 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Forrest, W.
Kirkwood, D.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gardner, J. P.
Lansbury, George


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lawrence, Susan


Ammon, Charles George
Gibbins, Joseph
Lawson, John James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gillett, George M.
Lindley, F. W.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Gosling, Harry
Limn, William


Barnes, A.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Win. (Edin., Cent.)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Batey, Joseph
Greenall, T.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Briant, Frank
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Broad, F. A.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
March, S.


Bromfield, William
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maxton, James


Bromley, J.
Groves, T.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Grundy, T. W.
Murnin, H.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Naylor, T. E.


Buchanan, G.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Oliver, George Harold


Charleton, H. C.
Hardle, George D.
Palin, John Henry


Cluse, W. S
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Paling, W.


Cove, W. G.
Hayday, Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Hirst, G. H.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Dalton, Hugh
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Potts, John S.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Dennison, R.
Hutchison. Sir Robert (Montrose)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Duckworth, John
Jenkins. W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Riley, Ben


Duncan, C.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Dunnico, H.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Robinson, W. C. (York, W. R., Elland)


Edge, Sir William
Jones. Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


England, Colonel A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Kelly, W. T.
Scrymgeour, E.


Fenby, T. D.
Kennedy, T.
Scurr, John


Sexton, James
Stamford, T. W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Stephen, Campbell
Wellock, Wilfred


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Strauss. E. A.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Sutton, J. E.
Wiggins, William Martin


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Tinker, John Joseph
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Tomlinson, R. P.
Windsor, Walter


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Varley, Frank B.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Snell, Harry
Viant, S. P.



Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Eills, R. G.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Mitchell. S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Albery, Irving James
Everard, W. Lindsay
Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Falls, Sir Bertram G.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Fermoy, Lord
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fielden, E. B.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Astor, Viscountess
Ganzoni, Sir John
Nuttall, Ellis


Atkinson, C.
Gates, Percy
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Barclay-Harvey C. M.
Goff, Sir Park
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gower, Sir Robert
Pennefather, Sir John


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Grace, John
Penny, Frederick George


Bennett, A. J.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Betterton, Henry B.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Bevan, S. J.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Philipson, Mabel


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Grotrian, H. Brent
Pitcher, G.


Blundell, F. N.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Preston, William


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Hamilton, Sir George
Radford, E. A.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hammersley, S. S.
Raine, Sir Walter


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hanbury, C.
Ramsden, E.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Held, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Briscoe, Richard George
Harland, A.
Remer, J. R.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Harrison, G. J. C.
Rentoul, G. S.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hartington, Marquess of
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)


Buchan, John
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Buckingham, Sir H.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Ropner, Major L.


Bullock, Captain M.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Burman, J. B.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Salmon, Major I.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Holt, Captain H. P.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Campbell. E. T.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Carver, Major W. H.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Alton)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Sandon, Lord


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hurd, Percy A.
Savory, S. S.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Iveagh, Countess of
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Conway, Sir W. Martin
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Shepperson, E. W.


Cooper, A. Duff
Jephcott, A. R.
Skelton, A. N.


Couper, J. B.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Smithers, Waldron


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Loder. J. de V.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Long, Major Eric
Storry-Deans, R.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lougher, Lewis
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davidson. Major-General Sir John H.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
McLean, Major A.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Macmillan, Captain H.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Dixey, A. C.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Drewe, C.
Manningham-Buller. Sir Mervyn
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Margesson, Captain D.
Waddington, R.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Wallace, Captain D. E.




Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otlay)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Wragg, Herbert


Watts, Sir Thomas
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George



Wayland, Sir William A.
Womersley, W. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wells, S. R.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'gs & Hyda)
Major Sir William Cope and




Sir Victor Warrender.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Finance Act, 1920, s. 19, and Finance Act, 1924, s. 22.)

For the purposes of Section nineteen of the Finance Act, 1920, as amended by Section twenty-two of the Finance Act, 1924, the word "widower" as used in those Sections shall be deemed to include and to have always included a person who has obtained a decree or order of divorce or judicial separation from his wife and an order giving to him the custody of the children of the marriage, and the word "widow" shall be deemed to have and to have always had a corresponding meaning.—[Sir M. Macnaghten.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir M. MACNAGHTEN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of the Clause is to extend the provisions of Section 19 of the Finance Act, 1920. By that Section a married man who has had the misfortune to lose his wife by death and is left with children is entitled to claim an allowance of £45, now increased to £60, for the expenses of a housekeeper to look after his children. This allowance can be claimed, in the case where the wife dies, by the widower, and, in the case where the husband dies, by the widow as a housekeeper's allowance.
It turned out that a man in my constituency who lost his wife, not by death but through her running away, was left with a number of young children. He obtained a judicial separation, and his wife has never been heard of since. He had been left with a number of young children, and he claimed quite bona fide the widower's allowance because he had been deprived of his wife. The claim was allowed, and then it was disallowed. The case went to the Court and the Judge expressed the opinion that this unfortunate man could not claim in exactly the same way as a man who had lost his wife by death. He held that Section 19 of the Act of 1920 was applicable only to the person who lost his wife by death.
The object of the Amendment is to extend this provision so as to make it clear that the word "widow" or "widower" should apply not only in the
case of death but in the case of divorce. The Committee will understand that it is not proposed to apply this to a person who is left without any young children. I hope my proposal will obtain the sympathy of the Committee and also the sympathy of the Government. It is highly desirable that taxation should be considered just by the people who have to pay it, and I do not consider it just if two persons in precisely the same case are treated differently by the taxation laws of the country.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: My hon. and learned Friend will remember that he sent me the case on which this proposed new Clause is based. The hon. and learned Member mentioned the case of a wife who ran away and left her husband with a number of young children. I have looked into the matter very carefully, and I was not able to see my way to grant relief for the person for whom my hon. and learned Friend pleads. Under the existing law a widow or widower is entitled to housekeeper's allowance amounting to £50, whether or not he or she has any children. This proposal of my hon. and learned Friend aims at putting the husband who divorces or obtains an order of separation from his wife, or vice versa, in the same position as a widow or widower, provided that he or she has obtained an order from the Court for the custody of the children of the marriage. That proposal would only give rise to further anomalies, and therefore I suggest to my hon. and learned Friend that he should not proceed with it. It cannot be hoped that the Income Tax will meet all individual cases of hardship, and the existing complexities of the law are to no small extent due to the fact that we have gone too far already in trying to do so.
Unless we call a halt, however desirable a step forward may seem to be, such as the one suggested by my hon. and learned Friend, we shall lose revenue in increasing amount and complicate more and more a law already intolerably complex. I would refer my hon. and learned
Friend to Section 650 of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Income Tax, which gives full support to the policy which I have outlined:
On the other hand, a tax that aimed at providing legislative provisions for every case, so that no hardship of any sort should be possible, would be so intricate and detailed, so full of exceptions and provisos, that it would be unintelligible to the ordinary taxpayer, and would render the machine ineffective.

That is the ground on which I base my opposition to the new Clause, and I would ask my hon. and learned Friend not to press it.

Question put, "That the Clause he read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 90; Noes, 202.

Division No. 234.]
AYES.
[11.23 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hayday, Arthur
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayes, John Henry
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Briant, Frank
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scrymgeour, E.


Bromfield, William
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scurr, John


Bromley, J.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan. Neath)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Charleton, H. C.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Snell, Harry


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Strauss, E. A.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sutton, J. E.


Dalton, Hugh
Kelly, W. T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Dennison, R.
Kennedy, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Duncan, C.
Kirkwood, D.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Dunnico, H.
Lawrence, Susan
Varley, Frank B.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lawton, John James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lindley, F. W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhoadda)


Fenby, T. D.
McLean, Major A.
Wellock, Wilfred


Gardner, J. P.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Whiteley. W.


Gibbins, Joseph
Murnin, H.
Wiggins, William Martin


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Palin, John Henry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Paling, W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Windsor, Walter


Hall. G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Potts, John S.



Hardie, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Riley, Ben
Sir Malcolm Macnaghten and Mr.




Pethick-Lawrence.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bullock, Captain M.
Ellis, R. G.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Burman, J. B.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Butt, Sir Alfred
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Campbell, E. T.
Falls, Sir Bertram G.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Fermoy, Lord


Astor, Viscountess
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Fielden, E. B.


Atkinson, C.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fraser, Captain Ian


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cooper, A. Duff
Ganzoni, Sir John


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Couper, J. B.
Gates, Percy


Bennett, A. J.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Betterton, Henry B.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Goff, Sir Park


Bevan, S. J.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Gower, Sir Robert


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Grace, John


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Blundell, F. N.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Boothby, R. J. G.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Grotrian, H. Brent


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hacking, Douglas H.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Boyd-Carnenter, Major Sir A. B.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hamilton, Sir George


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hammersley, S. S.


Briscoe, Richard George
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hanbury, C.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Dixey, A. C.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Brocklebank. C. E. R.
Drewe, C.
Harland, A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Eden, Captain Anthony
Harrison, G. J. C.


Buchan, John
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hartington, Marquees of


Buckingham, Sir H.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Skelton, A. N


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Nelson, Sir Frank
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Smithers, Waldron


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Nuttall, Ellis
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Holt, Captain H. P.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Penny, Frederick George
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'etand)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Storry-Deans, R.


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Pilcher, G.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Iveagh, Countess of
Preston, William
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Price, Major C. W. M.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Jephcott, A. R.
Radford, E. A.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Raine, Sir Walter
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Ramsden, E.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Waddington, R.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Remer, J. R.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Locker-Lampion, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Rentoul, G. S.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Loder, J. de V.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Long, Major Eric
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Renneil
Wayland, Sir William A.


Lougher, Lewis
Ropner, Major L.
Wells, S. R.


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


McLean, Major A.
Salmon, Major I.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Macmillan, Captain H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Womersley, W. J.


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Margesson, Captain D.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Meyer, Sir Frank
Sandon, Lord
Wragg, Herbert


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Savery, S. S.



Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A.D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)
Major Sir William Cope and


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Captain Wallace.


Moore-Brabazon Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Shepperson, E. W.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Increased preference on Empire brandy.)

As from the first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, there shall, in lieu of the Customs duty theretofore payable on Empire brandy, be charged, levied, and paid on Empire brandy imported into the United Kingdom for every gallon computed at proof—






£
s.
d.


In cask
…
…
…
3
5
4


In bottle
…
…
…
3
6
4





—[Mr. Harmon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. HANNON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The effect of this proposed new Clause will be to give a preference to Imperial brandy of 20s. per proof gallon. The House of Commons, on many occasions recently, has signified its adherence to the general principle that our overseas Dominions should get a preference in our market for the products which they send to this country. We have given a very generous concession in the case of wines, but, for some reason which only the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the officials of the Treasury can explain, they have treated brandy—a most important product of South Africa—with scant courtesy. We imported, last year, no
less than 500,000 gallons of foreign brandy.

Viscountess ASTOR: Shame!

Mr. HANNON: The Noble Lady seems to be interested in that large importation of foreign brandy. She is horrified. She may be further horrified to learn that we only imported 1,000 gallons of Empire-produced brandy. It is for preference in favour of brandy produced in South Africa—as I have said, an important product of that interesting Dominion—that I am now pleading with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am asking for a concession of 2s. a bottle on Imperial brandy. We give, at present, a concession of 2s. 6d. a bottle on rum, but then rum had the advantage of coming into the market long before Empire-produced brandy was heard of, and it has long since established itself and consolidated itself on its merits as an article of consumption in this country. Therefore, it would not be fair to regard the case of rum as analogous to the case of brandy in this respect. In the case of wines, we are giving a preference of 33⅓ per cent. on wines of 25 per cent. strength, and 30 per cent. on wines of 42 per cent. strength. Surely,
if we are doing that for wine, we ought to do it in a corresponding degree for brandy from the Empire. The preference which we are giving to Colonial wines is roughly equivalent to 8d. per bottle, and a bottle costs 4s. In the case of brandy, which costs 17s.—and I am sure the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) will be astonished at that—we give a preference of only 3½d. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary, who has for many years given a good deal of thought to the relative values of scientific preference on Empire commodities, how that 8d. on a bottle of wine which costs 4s. and only 3½d. on a bottle of brandy which costs 17s. can be justified? It is one of those extraordinary anomalies which is characteristic of our public finance I appeal to the Chancellor to put that right without a moment's further delay, and to think of the satisfaction which he will give to the South African people with whom he has been so eminently identified. This South African brandy is making its mark at the present time, and is specially acceptable for medical purposes in all our London hospitals. Surely, the Chancellor will not stand in the way of the medical faculty having the opportunity of the full enjoyment of so admirable a product. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to remove at once this singular anomaly in our preferential arrangements and give to our Cape producers, who are loyal, patriotic and devoted citizens of the Empire, the full privilege of sending their brandy to this market on equal terms with their French competitors. Why should we consume 500,000 gallons of French brandy and only 1,000 gallons of Cape brandy? I ask the Chancellor to assist the Cape farmers to get more of their brandy into our market, and thus cement still further the bonds of Empire.

Major ELLIOT: This proposal would involve a sacrifice of revenue so great as to bring a shudder to the heart of any member of my nationality. The sacrifice of revenue would mean £2,500,000 a year, and it is impossible for the revenue to contemplate a sacrifice of that kind. [Interruption.] My hon. Friends must not forget the fact that these Spirit
Duties are correlative, and it is impossible to reduce the taxation of one particular class without having regard to other classes of spirits which are produced. It is an axiom of taxation that things which may be substituted for each other must be scrutinised by the revenue authorities, and the suggested preference would bring the duty on brandy to a lower level than the duly on spirit which is produced in Scotland. It would mean putting the Cape farmer, loyal and devoted as he may be, in a better position than the equally loyal and devoted citizens of the northern kingdom. We already give considerable preference to Cape brandy; no such preference to Scotch whisky is given by the Cape farmers. We have made a gesture of friendliness towards them, and it is for them to reciprocate, and until that is done we see no reason why we should lower the duty and put those who live in one part of the Dominions better off than those who live in another, because the Cape farmers would be put in a better position than the Scottish farmers. For those reasons I must ask the Committee not to accept the Clause, and I hope that my hon. Friend will not desire to press it.

Mr. HANNON: After the explanation of the hon. and gallant Member, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion. Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the five new Clauses—(Silk Duties, Amendment)—standing in the name of the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer), the third, fourth, and fifth are not in order, as they impose a charge. The hon. Member can move either of the first two, whichever he prefers.

Sir F. MEYER: I will move the second new Clause.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Silk Duties, Amendment.)

As from the thirty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, the drawback granted in the case of tissue produced in Great Britain and Ireland if proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to be unweighted, in pursuance of the fourth Section of the Finance Act of 1925 and Part II of the Second Schedule of that Act, shall be seven shillings and nine-pence per pound.—[Sir F. Meyer.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir F. MEYER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Only a stern sense of duty impels me to move a new Clause of this somewhat difficult and technical nature at this very late hour, and I shall state the case for it with the utmost brevity, consistent with explaining the position, and at least I shall not weary the Committee with any figures. The Clause deals with drawbacks granted in connection with the Silk Duties. These duties, which were imposed by the Chancellor three years ago, have on the whole worked very smoothly, and I think I shall be speaking the mind of the silk trade as a whole when I say that it is very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the efforts he has made to meet its difficulties and to try to see that those duties, heavy though they are in some instances, do not interfere too much with its legitimate trade. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the trade has tried, as far as possible, to co-operate with him and to give him its loyal support in carrying out the policy which he laid down when he imposed the duties. With regard to the drawbacks I would explain that the rates differ. In the case of silk goods made from foreign yarns the drawback rate is 7s. 9d. In the case of silk goods made from English yarns the drawback is 4s. 3d. These differential rates of drawback are related to the different rates of duty which are imposed for foreign yarns and English-made yarns.
The drawback which is used by the vast majority of those in the silk trade is a composite rate of 5s. 6d., and, if they wish to have a 7s. 9d. or a 4s. 3d. rate, they have to employ it for a whole year. Consequently, they have to take only foreign yarn or English yarn. In practice, they adopt a composite rate of 5s. 6d., with the result that it works out that, on every pound of silk which they convert into silk goods and then export and claim the drawback, there is a heavy loss owing to the differentiation between the duty and the drawback. There is a loss, first of all, in boiling the silk down and also in the actual manufacture. From 23 ounces of silk yarn, you only get 16 ounces of silk. Therefore, on a pound of silk stuff made from silk yarn there is a loss of 1s. 4d., and on a pound of silk material made from silk yarn there is a loss of 2s. This
loss is a very heavy handicap to the export silk trade, and it is in order to do away with that loss that I have put down this new Clause, making the drawback a standard rate of 7s. 9d. The result of this proposal, if adopted, would be that the losses would be done away with, and there would be a very small profit instead. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to see his way either to make some concession or hold out some hope that this handicap on the export side of the silk business in this country may be done away with either now or in the near future. I am only speaking of a section of this important industry. Hon. Members will be surprised, I have no doubt, to hear that besides the fishing industry there is in Yarmouth a silk factory. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) speaks for a larger number of silk factory workers, and no doubt he will have something to say on this question. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to assure us that these drawbacks will be adjusted in such a way as not to inflict such a heavy handicap on the silk industry.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It has been known for some time that the silk trade has been complaining that the drawbacks are inadequate. I would like to point out that these duties have now been working for three years, and I hope that they will continue to go on in the same way for another year or two before they are remodelled. They are duties which have not provoked retaliation. These drawbacks about which so much was predicted, have not been treated as bounties, within the meaning of the legislation in foreign countries, which provide for definite retaliatory measures against bounties on export. The duties have also been attended by a diminution in the cost to the consumer, they have caused some increase in employment, and they have brought in a substantial revenue to the Exchequer.
I think it is much too soon to disturb this extremely complicated system of taxes, to the elaboration of which the House devoted an immense amount of time in the Budget of 1925 and which I trust we shall leave to work in a harmonious manner until at any rate a new-Parliament is established to take stock of it.

Mr. REMER: I should not wish to detain the Committee but for the observations made by the Chancellor with reference to the export trade. Last year, when I moved an Amendment, the present Lord Chancellor made a statement that Mr. Mackenzie King, the Canadian Prime Minister, had promised to consider the question of the export of silk to Canada. As far as the Canadian Government are concerned, they charge the extra price for duty purposes, including the raw material, on goods exported from Britain. That is doing considerable injury to our export trade. These anomalies are not merely important things in themselves, but are doing very considerable injury to the silk industry. The Silk Duties, as a whole, are doing a great deal to help the silk industry. I cannot understand why my right hon. Friend, when he realises the hurry in which these duties are being put through and when obvious anomalies are put before him does not see his way to dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" of the duties. I would ask him to consider whether it is worth while to allow all the great work which he has done in regard to the Silk Duties to be destroyed merely for the sake of saying that he is going to leave the thing for three, four or five years more. Cannot he give some assurance that between now and the Report stage he will consider the matter again. If he would like figures put in front of him, I should be very glad to send them to him, so that he may see if something can be done to deal with these obvious anomalies which exist in the Silk Duties.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN: The new Clause—(Maintenance Claims)—standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for the Maiden Division of Essex (Lieut.-Colonel Ruggles-Brise) is out of order.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption of gratuities.)

Gratuities granted to individuals for specific services to the State in the form of awards granted by the Royal Commission of Awards to Inventors, by the Royal Commission of Scientific and Industrial Research, by the Navy, Army, or Air Force authorities to officers and others for definite and specific services, shall be exempt from Income Tax and Super-tax in respect of these gratuities and awards.—[Sir J. Nall.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause has been put down to meet the kind of case that was raised at Question Time in the House last week, in which an inventor who is granted an award is taxed for Income Tax purposes on the full amount awarded to him. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is fully acquainted with the kind of cases that arise, and the object of this proposed new Clause is to ensure that an inventor to whom an award is made shall not suffer under the disability which at present applies to him. The Committee will recollect that in the case referred to some £4,000 was deducted for Income Tax from the award, and, although the inventor had had to incur heavy legal costs, no allowance was made for those costs or for the expense incurred in carrying out experiments in connection with the invention; and it may well happen in some cases that the inventor has no net gain to his credit at all. It seems grossly unfair that in cases of this kind, where considerable legal costs are incurred, these are not taken into account in assessing the net income of the taxpayer for purposes of Income Tax. I hope that my hon. Friend will see the justice of the proposal on which this Clause is based. I cannot think that it will involve any great loss to the Revenue; it is mainly a question of principle affecting, probably, only a few individuals.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: In the Clause as it appears on the Paper mention is made of the Royal Commission of Scientific and Industrial Research. There is no "Royal Commission of Scientific and Industrial Research." I understand that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has not granted awards of the kind contemplated by the Clause. I am aware of the case to which my hon. Friend has referred. I have given a good deal of thought to the principle involved. I think that it may, perhaps, be acceptable to the Committee if I read my notes of the conclusion to which we have come, so that there may be no doubt as to the view of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to it. In all these cases payments constitute income and are properly chargeable to tax. Other taxpayers receiving similar
gratuities and awards with regard to inventions from other sources—for example, inventors who receive payment in respect of the user of patents by private business concerns, or employés receiving gratuities for specific services from private employers—have to pay tax in respect of the payments. Therefore, there is no gross unfairness such as my hon. Friend suggests. There is no reason why persons who receive similar payments from the State should be put in a privileged position by being granted a special exemption. The decision of Mr. Justice Rowlatt in the case of Ryall v. Hoare made it clear that amounts, whether recurring or not, earned in respect of services rendered or work performed are within this charge of Income Tax. I think that these remarks will indicate to my hon. Friend that there are good reasons why we cannot accept this proposed new Clause.

12 m.

Mr. T. SHAW: The facts of the case which has been referred to have never been contradicted, and we have to take them as they have been given. Here is a man whom the Government forced to make good his claim at law. It makes him pay three-fourths of the amount to which he is entitled in law and other costs, and then imposes taxation on the whole of the sum to which he ought to have been entitled. The thing is a monstrous injustice, and, if the hon. Gentleman carries it to a Division, I shall certainly go into the Lobby with him.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I feel particularly strongly on this matter, because I have suffered from it myself. I fought the Government for four years to get £500 out of them, and at last I succeeded, and then they taxed me on the award. It is not at all true, as the Financial Secretary says, that this is analogous to a payment by a firm for an invention. It is no loss to the Government. It is the Government who are giving you the money, and when they give you a certain sum and then deduct a certain amount from it it is simply acting like Alice in Wonderland. They do it to annoy. There is absolutely no reason for the deductions at all. All that they have to do is to diminish the amount they are going to give and give it without any deduction at all.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not suppose for a moment the hon. Gentleman would suggest that we should alter our whole procedure in regard to awards. Awards, for instance, given to successful commanders in the field are subject to the ordinary rules of taxation, and there is no reason why those special awards which were given after the War should not also bear their proper and due burden. As a matter of fact, a great many of these inventors obtain their information through the fact that they are employed in connection with the military or naval forces, and some of them make large fortunes, while others who have contributed as much put forward no claim at all. I certainly do not sec why the ordinary process of the law should be interrupted in order to add to the advantage of those gentlemen who have received awards.

Sir J. NALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any instance in which a general officer had to sue at law for the payment of an award made for services in the field?

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: I should like once again to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because surely he must appreciate that cases of infinite hardship have arisen. To begin with, there is the case of Mr. Martin Hale, about which I have frequently addressed questions to the Financial Secretary. He received an award of £22,000 in all, but litigation was forced upon him by the action of a Government Department which cost him £10,000, and, in addition, he has been called upon to pay Income Tax and Super-tax. There is again the case of Sir Arthur Mills, the inventor of the Mills bomb. I had better not refer to that, because I believe litigation is still pending, but Sir Arthur Mills is a heavy loser. Mr. Constantinescu received an award, I believe, of something like £122,000. In the first instance, he was invited by the Government to produce an invention to enable aircraft to fire between the propellers of aeroplanes when in motion, and establish supremacy in the air. The actual cost of his researches and so on amounted to £40,000. Mr. Constantinescu was not a plutocrat; he was not a Government Department; he had to borrow the money from a financier, who claimed his pound of flesh; and the result is that Mr. Constantinescu has been fined. Again, take the case of an officer
in the Army, Navy or Air Force. He is not like a member of a commercial firm; he cannot sell his invention in the open market. He is not like a successful author, novelist, or writer of war reminiscences, who can go to a publisher and get what he asks; he has to take whatever a Government Department like to give him. I submit that it is grossly unfair to charge these small people, not only officers, but civilians, who evolve valuable inventions, Income Tax on the small and often totally inadequate awards which they receive.

Mr. R. YOUNG: So far as the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors is concerned, I think the Committee ought to remember that those who appeared before that Royal Commission did so on the clear understanding that they were avoiding litigation in relation to their inventions. It is perfectly true to say that the Royal Commission gave consideration to all the matters which have been pointed out in fixing the amounts of the various awards. I speak as an ex-member of the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors, and I think that hon. Members ought to remember that those who elected to appear before that Royal Commission elected to do so in order to safeguard themselves from litigation, which might cause considerable expense to those who were receiving the awards; and I understood at the time that those who came before that Royal Commission appeared before it with the clear understanding that the decision of the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors was to be accepted by them as a final decision.

Mr. ROBERT HUDSON: I, at all events, and I think other hon. Members of the Committee, would be glad if my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would explain a little more fully what he meant by his recent remarks. I am left under the impression, which I think is shared by other hon. Members, that he intended to convey that members of His Majesty's fighting forces who received grants from the country at the end of the late War had to pay Income Tax on those grants—that the general who received £50,000 or £30,000 paid Income Tax in the year when he received the grant, not on the income derived from that capital sum, but
actually on the £50,000 or £30,000, or whatever the actual sum might be that he got as a grant. I do not know whether it is an actual fact that those officers were asked to pay Income Tax on the capital sum, and I think it would be well if my right hon. Friend would enlighten the Committee as to whether those people were in fact charged Income Tax, and whether the parallel which he attempted to draw between the two sets of persons is really a correct one, or was, as many hon. Members of the Committee think, an attempt to draw a red herring across the trail of the discussion.

Captain CROOKSHANK: It may be that this new Clause is not very clearly drafted, but I certainly understood from those who proposed it that their intention was to deal with the question of gratuities which were awarded to inventors, and not to raise the question of grants made by Parliament to distinguished officers at the conclusion of the War, As I understand, the point at issue is one which occurs every year. If hon. Members will follow the various accounts of Government Departments, they will see in those accounts that payments are made of definite gratuities on inventions which are of use, whether to the fighting services or to other branches of our national life. The amounts which are paid at the present time are generally quite small, without going back to the cases mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bromley (Lieut.-Colonel James), which it is true were otherwise than small. It should be definitely agreed upon by Parliament, I submit, that when the Royal Commission, acting under the authority of Parliament, makes a definite grant for a specific invention, chat amount should not be considered as income at all. After all, it is asking a lot of an inventor to expect that he will go on producing inventions year by year. It is not in any sense of the word a source of income; it is, on the other hand, in every sense of the word a definite invention, and as such, as I am sure every hon. Member of the Committee agrees, ought to be deemed to be a definite addition to the capital of the inventor, and no part of his income at all.

Mr. R. HUDSON: I submit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been
definitely challenged to state whether or not those inventors to whom reference has been made were expected to employ legal assistance, and two hon. Members have challenged him to say whether or not there is any foundation for the statement the right hon. Gentleman made. I submit that he is treating the Committee and Members of his own party with very little courtesy in not answering that challenge and saying whether that statement has any foundation.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Whether what has any foundation?

Mr. HUDSON: Whether the impression the right hon. Gentleman left on the mind of the Committee is true, that

those members of the Forces who received substantial block grants at the end of the war had to pay tax not only on the income for those grants, but on the actual grants themselves?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If I gave the impression that the grants to the Generals were taxed on the capital sum, I was wrong; but so far as this particular case is concerned—the awards to inventors—there is no doubt about what was the intention of Parliament and what is the practice. The rule provides most clearly that these awards are subject to Income Tax on the capital sum.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 80; Noes, 142.

Division No. 235.]
AYES.
[12.13 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Potts, John S.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hirst, G. H.
Remer, J. R.


Batey, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Richardson, R. (Houghton le-Spring)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Riley, Ben


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Bromfield, William
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Scrymgeour, E.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Buchan, John
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Kelly, W. T.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kennedy, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kirkwood, D.
Tinker, John Joseph


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lawrence, Susan
Tomlinson, R. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Lawson, John James
Varley, Frank B.


Duncan, C.
Lindley, F. W.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Dunnico, H.
Loder, J. de V.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Long, Major Eric
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Fenby, T. D.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Wellock, Wilfred


Gibbins, Joseph
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gillett, George M.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Whiteley, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Murnin, H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Nelson, Sir Frank
Windsor, Walter


Grundy, T. W.
Oliver, George Harold
Wragg, Herbert


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Palin, John Henry



Hardie, George D.
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Lieut.-Colonel James and Mr. Ernest


Hayday, Arthur
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
 Brown.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.


Agg Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Fermoy, Lord


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Cooper, A. Duff
Fielden, E. B.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cope, Major Sir William
Fraser, Captain Ian


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Couper, J. B.
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Atkinson, C.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Goff, Sir Park


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Gower, Sir Robert


Blundell, F. N.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Grace, John


Boothby, R. J. G.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Grotrian, H. Brent


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Briscoe, Richard George
Dixey, A. C.
Hamilton, Sir George


Bullock, Captain M.
Drewe, C.
Hammersley S. S.


Burman, J. B.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hanbury, C.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Butt, Sir Alfred
Ellis, R. G.
Harrison, G. J. C.


Campbell, E. T.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Hartington, Marquess of


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Falls, Sir Bertram G.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Skelton, A. N.


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Holt, Captain H. P.
Penny, Frederick George
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'sland)


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Philipson, Mabel
Storry-Deans, R.


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Pilcher, G.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Iveagh, Countess of
Preston, William
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Radford, E. A.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Raine, Sir Walter
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell'


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Ramsden, E.
Titchfield, Major the Marquees of


Knox, Sir Alfred
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lamb, J. Q.
Rentoul, G. S.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Lougher, Lewis
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Watts, Sir Thomas


McLean, Major A.
Ropner, Major L.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Macmillan, Captain H.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Williams, Herbert G. (reading)


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Salmon, Major I.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Womersley, W. J.


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Margesson, Captain D.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Sanderson, Sir Frank



Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Sandon, Lord
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Captain Wallace and Sir Victor


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Shepperson, E. W.
Warrender.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption for agricultural shows.)

The entertainments duty imposed by the Finance Act (New Duties) Act, 1916, as amended by any subsequent enactment, shall not, after the first clay of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, be charged on payment for admission to any agricultural show the whole of the profits of which are devoted to agriculture or educational purposes, notwithstanding that admission to the show may include admission to an entertainment subsidiary to the main purpose of the show, in regard to which, but for the provision of this Section, entertainment duty would be payable.—[Mr. Wardlaw-Milne.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. WARD LAW-MILNE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I need say little in commending this new Clause to the Committee. The subject has been dealt with on many previous occasions and it makes a special appeal because hon. Members representing agricultural constituencies are to be found in all parties. I have reason to believe that, at last, after a number of years, there is a good chance that the Government will this year feel themselves able to meet us in regard to the proposal in the new Clause. The charging of the Entertainments Duty on admission to agricultural shows has been one of great difficulty throughout the country ever since the Duty was first imposed. It is extremely difficult for the agricultural shows to make progress without some form of entertainment to add to the gate. I have inserted words in the new Clause
which I hope have had some effect in influencing the Government to meet us, in order to make it quite clear that any side-shows shall be subsidiary to the main purposes of the show. Therefore there will be no fear of the possibility of an agricultural show consisting of a cow and a plough, and a whole military tournament. The persons who will have the right to see that the subsidiary attraction is not of the same importance as the show itself, are the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. Therefore the Government need have no fear that under this new Clause there is a chance of evasion of the Entertainments Duty under the guise of an agricultural show. These agricultural societies are not working for ordinary profit. There has recently been a test case, under which an agricultural show has been defined as a charity for the purpose of Income Tax, but it is essential that the purpose of the show shall be educational, industrial or for the promotion of children's interests in agricultural pursuits.

Major ELLIOT: Having regard to a recent decision in the Court of Appeal that the Yorkshire Agricultural Society is a charitable body for purposes of Income Tax, in that it benefits the community by promoting the interests of agriculture by means of its annual show and other activities such as educational and scientific work, my right hon. Friend has been advised that this decision must be applied to similar societies for the purposes of Entertainments Duty. The Commissioners of Customs and Excise
will therefore be prepared to consider claims made by agricultural, horticultural and live stock breeding societies for relief from Entertainments Duty, not only under the provisions of the law relating to agricultural shows, but also, alternatively, under the provisions of the law relating to entertainments of which the proceeds are devoted to philanthropic or charitable purposes. A leaflet on the subject, is being prepared by the Commissioners and will shortly be ready for distribution to parties interested. An essential condition of exemption on philanthropic or charitable grounds is that the proceeds of the entertainment shall be devoted to the benefit of the community in the improvement of agriculture, horticulture, or live stock breeding. If that condition is fulfilled, there is no restriction on the nature of the exhibits or attractions. In these circumstances I hope the hon. and learned Member will withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. WARD LAW-MILNE: There is only one point which is not quite clear. Do I understand that under the conditions which the hon. and gallant Member has laid clown it will be in order, provided the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are satisfied that the attractions are subsidiary to the main purpose of the show, and that the funds derived are devoted in the way he has described, to allow military tournaments provided they are subsidiary to the main purpose of the agricultural show?

Major ELLIOT: The essential point is to what the proceeds are devoted.

Mr. J. HUDSON: What will happen if it is proved by a reference to the balance sheet that the relief in the way of exemption from duty has gone into the pocket of the landlord in the way of increased rent? Hon. Members opposite jeer, but if it is disputed I am prepared to bring forward evidence to show that landlords, and very prosperous landlords, have increased rents to the promoters of these shows when exemption from this duty has been obtained by them. If it can be proved that this has occurred will the hon. and gallant Member reconsider the case?

Major ELLIOT: I do not know that I fully appreciate the point. The important
consideration is that the proceeds of the show, after expenses have been met, are devoted to philanthropic or charitable purposes. In that case there is no question of levying the duty.

Mr. HUDSON: But before the proceeds of the show can be arrived at the rent of the landlord has to be paid. Will the Treasury take into consideration the amount of the rent in estimating what are the proceeds of the show?

Major ELLIOT: It will not be possible for the Treasury to go into the details of every show. That would involve the consideration of many factors which are included in the expenses, such as the price of the timber for the stands, the cost of erection, and so on, and it will not be possible for the Treasury to analyse all the accounts.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

First Schedule (Provisions as to duty and drawback in case of hydrocarbon oils) agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Sugar, etc.)

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I beg to move, in page 22, line 10, after the word "Kingdom" to insert the words "from material on which duty has been paid." This and the next few Amendments I shall move merely rectify a few verbal errors in the Schedule.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Do I understand that the insertion of these words will give a preference to British sugar refiners?

Mr. SAMUEL: The voids are merely drafting to rectify verbal errors.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 22, line 13, after the word "Kingdom," insert the words "from material on which duty has been paid."

In line 22, leave out the words "produced in the United Kingdom."

In page 23, line 15, leave out the words "produced in the United Kingdom."—(Mr. Samuel.)

Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Amended rates of duty in the case of certain mechanically propelled vehicles.)

Mr. ATKINSON: I beg to move, in page 26, line 15, to leave out "4" and to insert instead thereof "6."
The object of this Amendment is to bring the country taxicab into the same class of taxation as the taxicabs in London and the great cities. Taxis in cities are, as a rule, four-seated, but in country places, in my own constituency for instance, they are nearly all five or six-seaters, and they are taxed on the higher rate as hackney carriages holding more than four but not more than eight. I think there is really no good reason why they should be taxed on the higher rate. They do not do anything like the same amount of business. It is no advantage to be able to carry more than five or six passengers. These taxis stand most of the time waiting for trains. They take away one or two people, and they have to make their return journeys without any chance of picking up passengers. From whatever point of view one looks at it, the conditions under which they carry on their business are far less advantageous than in London or the great cities. They pay the Petrol Duty on the double journey. They depend very much in their business on the success of the railways. They are just as badly hit as the railways. I do suggest that it is a reasonable request to make a simple alteration of this sort. Taxi-cabs throughout the country should be brought within the same class of taxation as those plying for hire in town.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): When the next Amendment comes on, I will deal with the concessions which we have made to the taxicab industry in this Budget.

They are very considerable. Here I am simply dealing with the question of seating, and we have so adjusted our taxation, not only of taxicabs but of chars-a-bane and other things, that the concession should be given in steps of four, six, and eight, and so on. That has been very carefully thought out, and I can see no reason why we should change the four to six. It would mean a substantial loss to the revenue. On the next Amendment, I will explain how very generous we have been to the taxicab industry in this matter.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: May I ask if under this Schedule the duty on a taxi-cab licensed for five is £12, and on one licensed for four £10? I would like to know, because I have lately had personal experience of the difficulties which are encountered in London. The people who go to theatres in the West End have a whole lot of police officers standing about to make quite sure that a taxi driver does not pick up more than four persons. I saw a case the other night of a lady who was in a fainting condition because of the heat, and the police refused to allow her to get into a cab because there were already four persons in it. When I made inquiries, I was told that they had to pay extra duty if they had a licence for more than four people. That seems ridiculous, and it seems a strong argument in support of the Amendment.

Colonel ASHLEY: The simple explanation is that if a taxi-cab is licensed for four persons and you take more than four you break the police regulations.

Question put, "That '4' stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 42.

Division No. 236.]
AYES.
[12.38 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Burman, J. B.
Dawson, Sir Philip


Agg-Gardner. Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Drewe, C.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Campbell, E. T.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Ellis, R. G.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cooper, A. Duff
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Bird. Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Cope, Major Sir William
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Blundell, F. N.
Couper, J. B.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Fielden, E. B.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewel
Fraser, Captain Ian


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Briscoe, Richard George
Cronkshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Ganzrni, Sir John


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Gilmour, Lt. Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Buchan, John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Goff, Sir Park


Buckingham. Sir H.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Gower, Sir Robert


Bullock, Captain M.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Grace, John


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
McLean, Major A.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Grotrian, H. Brent
Macmillan, Captain H.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Hamilton, Sir George
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sandon, Lord


Hammersley, S. S.
Margesson, Captain D.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Hanbury, C.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Shepperson, E. W.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Skelton, A. N.


Harland, A.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Harrison, G. J. C.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Hartington, Marquess of
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Penny, Frederick George
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Holt, Captain H. P.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Philipson, Mabel
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Pilcher, G.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Preston, William
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Radford, E. A.
Watts, Sir Thomas


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Raine, Sir Walter
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Ramsden, E.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Womersley, W. J.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Lamb, J. O.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Wragg, Herbert


Loder, J. de V.
Ropner, Major L.



Long, Major Eric
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lougher, Lewis
Salmon, Major I.
Captain Wallace and Sir Victor


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Warrender.


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)



NOES.


Batey, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Tinker, John Joseph


Crawfurd, H. E.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Tomlinson, R. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Varley, Frank B.


Duncan, C.
Kelly, W. T.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kennedy, T.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Fonby, T. D.
Kirkwood, D.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Gillett, George M.
Lawrence, Susan
Wellock, Wilfred


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lawson, John James
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Grundy, T. W.
Lindley, F. W.
Windsor, Walter


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Murnin, H.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hayday, Arthur
Oliver, George Harold



Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hirst, G. H.
Scrymgeour, E.
Mr. Atkinson and Mr. A. V.




Alexander.

Mr. ATKINSON: I beg to move, in page 26, line 15, to leave out "£10," and to insert instead thereof "£6."

Colonel ASHLEY: I do not know whether the hon. Member realises what a very considerable concession has been given to these taxi-cabs by the Budget. Last year, the taxation was £15, and it has been reduced to £10. Actually, one-third of the taxation has been taken off. Now the hon. Member wishes to reduce it still more, and he does not give any reason why it should be done. The concession to taxi-cabs has cost £200,000. We have given £200,000 to taxi-cabs of Great Britain, and we cannot possibly afford to give another £160,000.

Mr. ATKINSON: I moved this Amendment in order to give the Minister of Transport an opportunity to explain what
had been done. I beg to ask leave to-withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir W. SUGDEN: I beg to move, in page26, line 4, after the second word "tyres," to insert the words: Words:
including tyres having a distinct and continuous air chamber running round the internal circumference of the tyre with a tread design so balanced and proportioned that constant displacement and recovery takes place under load.
I am sure the Minister of Transport will acquiesce immediately in my Amendment. It is necessary to include in the term "pneumatic" that which is generally known in the trade as the "cushion" tyre. The position, as I understand it, is (1), that the Minister of Transport desires to preserve the quality and efficiency of the roads; (2),
that he has some conception of the need that buildings put up under the Minister of Health via housing schemes should not be damaged by juggernauts of 10, 12, or 20 tons crashing through the streets and the country with their irresistible powers, shaking houses and spoiling them and adding to the taxation of the country by their repairs. If the Minister of Transport desires to preserve the roads and prevent houses from being shaken, he will see the necessity for "pneumatic" also including "cushion." Though now, perhaps, somewhat junior in the higher section of the legal profession, I have had some 15 years' practical engineering knowledge comprising also the making of tyres, and, with very great respect to the Minister, there is one thing I want to say very definitely. There is no one who will disprove my statement that the air cushion tyre is as efficient for the purpose for which this special rebate is allowed as the pneumatic tyre. I go further and say it is impossible to get satisfactory results as to running on some of the largest motor haulage wagons, and the cushion tyre is the only real safe alternative. With the high efficiency and mentality which the Minister of Transport possesses, and the great love he has for the Minister of Health, I am sure he will at once accept the Amendment I have so succinctly and modestly presented to him.

Colonel ASHLEY: I think, Mr. Herbert, after you have read the Amendment from the Chair the Committee will be thoroughly of opinion why I cannot

possibly accept it. It is almost impossible to interpret it. But may I in all seriousness point out to my hon. Friend who has moved that Amendment the concessions given in the Budget to heavy vehicles? We are giving away no less a sum than £650,000 in a full financial year in order to induce the heavy chars-a-banc and heavy motor vehicles to go on pneumatic tyres.

Sir W. SUGDEN: May I inform my right hon. Friend that it is impossible to produce a pneumatic tyre to cover more than 15 per cent. of the motor vehicles on the roads?

Colonel ASHLEY: We are giving this great concession to the chars-a-banc and to the heavy motor vehicles in order in some way to make up the tax of 4d. per gallon which they have to pay and also at the same time in order to diminish the expenses which the ratepayers are bearing in keeping up the roads, because everybody knows that pneumatic tyres do much less harm on the roads than solid tyres. I cannot accept the Amendment which the hon. Member has moved. I am advised that these cushion tyres are not the same as pneumatic tyres, and, if I am giving this enormous sum of £650,000 to induce the use of pneumatic tyres to save the roads, I cannot accept this Amendment for cushion tyres.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 39; Noes, 137.

Division No. 237.]
AYES.
[12.55 a.m.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hudson, J. H. (Haddersfield)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Tomlinson, R. P.


Crawfurd, H. E.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Varley, Frank B.


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Duncan, C.
Kelly, W. T.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kennedy, T.
Wellock, Wilfred


Fenby, T. D.
Lawrence, Susan
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gillett, George M.
Lawson, John James
Windsor, Walter


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lindley, F. W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Oliver, George Harold



Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hayday, Arthur
Scrymgeour, E.
Sir Wilfrid Sugden and Mr. Luke




Thompson.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Betterton, Henry B.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Buchan, John


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Blundell, F. N.
Buckingham, Sir H.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Bullock, Captain M.


Atkinson, C.
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Burman, J. B.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Briscoe, Richard George
Burton, Colonel H. W.


Campbell, E. T.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Raine, Sir Walter


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ramsden, E.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Cope, Major Sir William
Holt, Captain H. P.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Couper, J. B.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Ropner, Major L.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Salmon, Major I.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Samuel, A M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Dalkeith. Earl of
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Sandon, Lord


Dawson, Sir Philip
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Drewe, C.
Lamb, J. Q.
Shepperson, E. W.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Loder, J. de V.
Skelton, A. N.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Long, Major Eric
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lougher, Lewis
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
McLean, Major A.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Fielden, E. B.
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Margesson, Captain D.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Ganzoni, Sir John
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Tryon, Rt. Hon George Clement


Goff, Sir Park
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Gower, Sir Robert
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Grace, John
Nelson, Sir Frank
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Grotrian, H. Brent
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Hall. Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hamilton, Sir George
Penny, Frederick George
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hammersley, S. S.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Womersley, W. J.


Hanbury, C.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Philipson, Mabel
Wragg, Herbert


Harland, A.
Pilcher, G.



Harrison, G. J. C.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hartington, Marquess of
Preston, William
Captain Wallace and Sir Victor


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Radford, E. A.
Warrender.


Question put, and agreed to.

Third Schedule agreed to.

Fourth Schedule (Agreement made the 25th day of April, 1928, between the British Government and the Government of the Irish Free State amending the Agreement made on the 14th day of April, 1926, between the said Governments in respect of Double Income Tax) agreed to.

FIFTH SCHEDULE.—(Enactments repealed.)

Amendment made: In page 32, line 14, at the end insert:


43 & 44 Vict. c. 19.
The Taxes Management Act, 1880.
Sub sections (9) and (10) of Section seventy-three.


[Sir H. Buckingham.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the Fifth Schedule of the Bill."

1.0 a.m.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: There has been no word of explanation of the Amendment, and I should like to know something about it.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is a little too late.

Mr. ALEXANDER: On a point Order. You have not yet put the Schedule.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I put the Question, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the Fifth Schedule of the Bill." That is the Question before the Committee. The particular Amendment is already passed, and it is hardly open to the hon. Member to discuss it all over again on the Schedule.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I merely raise in order to give the Financial Secretary a chance of explaining.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: The Amendment is merely consequential on an Amendment already passed. It is purely drafting Amendment.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed [Bill 168.]

Mr. SPEAKER'S RETIREMENT BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment: to be read the Third time To-morrow.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE [SALARIES, ETC.].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend the provisions of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, relating to probate, registrars, and registries, and certain other matters and otherwise to amend the law with respect to the administration of justice and matters connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) all salaries, allowances, and other sums payable under the said Act to district probate registrars and clerks in district probate registries;
1350
(b) any allowances payable under the said Act to registrars of County Courts."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[The Attorney-General.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Eleven Minutes after One o'Clock.